Cohan v. Cohan
| Decision Date | 11 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19803,19803 |
| Citation | 150 Colo. 249,372 P.2d 149 |
| Parties | Ivonne J. COHAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harold L. COHAN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Hellerstein & Hellerstein, Dickerson, Morrissey & Dwyer, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Zarlengo, Zarlengo & Seavy, Denver, Epstein & Epstein, for defendant in error.
Ivonne Cohan, hereinafter referred to as Ivonne, seeks reversal of an order in a divorce action pertaining to division of property, permanent alimony and support money.
Ivonne and Harold Cohan, the latter to be referred to as Harold, were married in 1946, and three children were born as issue of the marriage. Ivonne and Harold were each possessed of wealthy and generous parents, and through the years each acquired considerable property in the form of gifts from his or her respective parents. Accordingly, as of the date of divorce, Ivonne in her own name owned stock in the family-owned corporation (Kamen Supply Company) which had a value slightly in excess of $300,000. Similarly Harold owned stock in his family-owned corporation (Denver Buick) which had a value only slightly less than $300,000.
The family home, which was jointly owned by Ivonne and Harold--though in the main paid for by their parents, had a value of approximately $90,000 and the furnishings for this mansion were estimated to have a value of $26,000.
Harold was employed by, and was an officer of, his family-owned corporation and his gross income for 1959 from the company was $22,800. Ivonne, who devoted her full time to management of the Cohan household, had an independent income from dividends and oil royalties which amounted to approximately $4,200 in 1959.
After full and extensive hearings, which consumed three days of court time and which developed in great detail the complete financial picture of the Cohan family, the trial court entered its order and judgment dividing the properties of the Cohans and entering a permanent alimony and support order, which order, among other things, decreed the following:
1. That Ivonne and Harold should each keep and retain as his or her separate property their respective interests in the Kamen Supply Company and Denver Buick;
2. That the family home should be sold and the proceeds divided equally between Ivonne and Harold; but
3. That Ivonne should have first option to purchase Harold's interest in the family home for the sum of $42,626.78;
4. That should Ivonne elect not to purchase Harold's interest in the family home then Harold should have the right to purchase Ivonne's interest therein for the sum of $42,626.78;
5. That Ivonne should have as her sole and separate property all furnishings in the family home;
6. That Harold should pay Ivonne as permanent alimony the sum of $200 per month, and should also pay the sum of $300 per month as child support for the two children then living with Ivonne in the family home, the eldest child then living with Harold; and
7. That Ivonne should reimburse Harold in the sum of $600 for damage and destruction inflicted by Yvonne on Harold's clothing and personal effects.
Ivonne complains of this order in the following particulars:
1. The trial court erred in failing to award her the family residence 2. The trial court abused its discretion in its determination of the amount of permanent alimony and support;
3. That though the oldest child was at the time living with Harold, it was still error for the trial court to award support money for only the two children then actually living with her, since the parties had stipulated in open court that any award of support money 'was to be for all three minor children of the parties'; and
4. That the trial court grievously erred in ordering her to reimburse Harold in the amount of $600 for the damage she occasioned Harold by the cutting up of his wearing apparel.
Ivonne also contends that from a procedural standpoint the trial court erred in refusing to admit in evidence her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Lafaye, 01CA1210.
...tax code provisions do not deprive the dissolution court of jurisdiction to enter orders as between the parties. See Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149 (1962) (court may consider the effect of state and federal income taxes on its contemplated award in a dissolution of marriage act......
-
Berge v. Berge
...of the trial court, and on review the order will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly demonstrated. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149. Our examination of the record here satisfies us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the award of child......
-
Lodholm's Marriage, In re, 74--158
...been held repeatedly that in matters of division of property the trial court is imbued with broad discretion, see, e.g., Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149, and that the mandate to distribute property equitably does not require equality. See Thompson v. Thompson, 30 Colo.App. 57, 4......
-
Kraus v. Kraus
...and alimony rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review except for its abuse. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149; Harvey v. Harvey, 150 Colo. 449, 373 P.2d 304. Marital fault is not an issue in proceedings for property division. Whether t......
-
ARTICLE 10
...damaged or destroyed husband's personal effects, it was not error to award husband value thereof against the wife. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149 (1962). It was not a prerequisite to a fair and equitable division of property that the wife must show that she had contributed by f......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...damaged or destroyed husband's personal effects, it was not error to award husband value thereof against the wife. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149 (1962). It was not a prerequisite to a fair and equitable division of property that the wife must show that she had contributed by f......
-
Maintenance in Colorado: Issues and Factors
...1975) (eleven-year marriage, husband did not want wife working outside home). 23. Fernstrum, supra, note 7. 24. In re Marriage of Cohan, 372 P.2d 149 (Colo. 1962) (both parties received considerable gifts from each of their parents). 25. Gray, supra, note 22. See also note 41, infra. 26. Ba......