Creech v. Creech
| Citation | 1956 OK 10,292 P.2d 376 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36789,36789 |
| Parties | Isabelle J. CREECH, Plaintiff in Error, v. Merl D. CREECH, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a divorce is granted the wife by reason of the fault of the husband, the allowance of permanent alimony rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and it is to be exercised with reference to established principles, and on a view of all the circumstances, such as the husband's estate and ability, at the time the divorce is granted, and the wife's condition and means.
2. An action for divorce, alimony and division of property is one of equitable cognizance, and the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless found to be clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; W. A. Carlile, Judge.
Action by Merl D. Creech against Isabelle J. Creech for divorce. Judgment on her cross-petition, granting defendant a divorce and alimony, and settling the parties' property rights. Defendant appeals as to property settlement and alimony awarded. Affirmed.
Luttrell & Luttrell, Norman, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Pugh, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This is an action by Merl D. Creech against defendant Isabelle J. Creech, his wife, for divorce and division of jointly acquired property. Plaintiff's action is predicated on extreme cruelty and incompatibility. He was a resident of Oklahoma County at the time it was brought.
In her answer defendant specifically denied that she had been guilty of cruelty and incompatibility. By cross-petition she sought a divorce on the ground of incompatibility and prayed for an equitable division of jointly acquired property and for alimony. The trial court denied plaintiff's application for divorce, but granted defendant the divorce and alimony on her cross-petition. The decree also distributed the parties' jointly acquired property between them.
Defendant herein appeals, contending that the trial court's division of the jointly acquired property is inequitable and unjust and does not award her a fair share of the property. She also contends that the alimony awarded her is inadequate.
The evidence shows that the parties were married September 28, 1928, and neither party had then accumulated any property. Plaintiff was then attending the University of Oklahoma on a scholarship. During this schooling, defendant obtained a position with the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company at Oklahoma City and from her wages she supported the family and assisted plaintiff through school. About two years subsequently, plaintiff graduated and obtained a position as an instructor in Tulsa University. He remained there about nine months. He thereafter obtained positions at Pittsburg, Chicago and other places.
Thereafter, in September, 1941, the couple returned to Norman, where plaintiff was engaged at the University of Oklahoma as a professor. He still holds this position in which he receives a salary of $6,000 per year. Ever since the couple's aforesaid return to Norman, defendant has been re-employed by the telephone company and during all this time has thereby earned $60 per week. Defendant contends that, during their marriage, the parties have acquired property of the total value of $30,990.35, of which the share the decree awarded her has a value of only $13,325, while that awarded the plaintiff is worth $17,665.35. She invoices the value of all of the couple's property as follows:
Real Estate at 820 W. Eufaula St
Norman, Oklahoma $9,750 mortgaged for
$6,000 equity in property, $3,750.00
Home at 602 South Ponca Street, Norman
Oklahoma 9,500.00
A T & T Stock and debentures, 3,100.00
U.S. Savings Bonds maturity value 1,950.00
Buick automobile 800.00
Professional library, 6,204.41
Shop tools and equipment, $2,000.00
Office equipment, 1,735.94
Photographic equipment, 500.00
Binoculars, 200.00
Household goods 1,000.00
Luggage
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merritt v. Merritt
...unless the trial court abused its discretion or unless the court's finding was clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Creech v. Creech, 1956 OK 10, ¶ 9, 292 P.2d 376, 378; Tschauner v. Tschauner, 1952 OK 230, ¶¶ 22, 25, 245 P.2d 448, II. EQUITABLE JURISDICTION ¶ 8 The trial court b......
-
Hough v. Hough
...v. Merritt, 2003 OK 68, ¶ 7, 73 P.3d 878, 882, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 820, 157 L.Ed.2d 697 (2003); Creech v. Creech, 1956 OK 10, 292 P.2d 376, 378; Tschauner v. Tschauner, 1952 OK 230, 245 P.2d 448. In this case, the COCA concluded that the trial court abused its discretion ......
-
Manhart v. Manhart, 59444
...on appeal unless found to be clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Peters v. Peters, 539 P.2d 26 (Okl.1975); Creech v. Creech, 292 P.2d 376 (Okl.1956); Tschauner v. Tschauner, 206 Okl. 586, 245 P.2d 448 (1952). The burden of showing that the judgment is against the clear weight of......
-
Thornton v. Thornton
...unless the court's finding was clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Merritt v. Merritt, 2003 OK 68, ¶ 7, 73 P.3d 878; Creech v. Creech, 1956 OK 10, ¶ 9, 292 P.2d 376, 378; Tschauner v. Tschauner, 1952 OK 230, ¶ 25, 245 P.2d 448. ¶ 6 Title 43 O.S. Supp.2004, § 601–607 spells out t......