Crowe v. Crowe, No. 17410.
Docket Nº | No. 17410. |
Citation | 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645 |
Case Date | March 29, 1946 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
116 Ind.App. 534
65 N.E.2d 645
CROWE
v.
CROWE.
No. 17410.
Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.
March 29, 1946.
Appeal from Lake Superior Court, No. 3; Fred A. Egan, Judge.
Action by William C. Crowe against Vivian Crowe, wherein plaintiff was granted a divorce and ordered to pay $30 per month for support of two minor children whose custody was awarded to defendant. Defendant later filed a motion to modify the order by requiring plaintiff to pay $100 per month for support of the children, to which motion plaintiff filed a response and cross-motion to modify the order by awarding custody of the children to him and relieving him from further obligation to pay defendant for their support. From a judgment modifying the order by requiring plaintiff to pay $85 per month for support of the children and awarding custody of children during summer months to him, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
[65 N.E.2d 646]
Oscar B. Thiel, of Gary, for appellant.
Stiles & Bayor, of Gary, for appellee.
ROYSE, Presiding Judge.
Prior to September 16, 1937, the parties hereto were husband and wife. They had four children. On said last mentioned date appellant was granted a divorce from appellee. The court gave appellee custody of two children, Ruth Elizabeth who was then six years old, and Robert who was then two years old. Appellant was granted custody of the other two children. Appellant was ordered to pay $30 per month for the support of the children placed in the custody of appellee.
On or about June 5, 1945, appellee filed her motion to modify the order of September 16, 1937, by requiring appellant to pay $100 per month for the support of said two children. In said motion she averred that since said decree was entered appellant's income had increased from $150 per month to $1500 per month. It was further averred that as the children grew older it required a larger sum to adequately support them. To this motion appellant filed what he denominated a response and cross-motion to modify the original decree, in which he alleged appellee did not require more than $30 per month to support said children and that she had removed said children from the jurisdiction of the Court to the State of Arkansas. He further alleged appellee had persistently attempted to poison the minds of said children against him; that the daughter Ruth Elizabeth has expressed a desire to live with her father. He sought custody of said children and relief from further obligation to pay appellee for their support.
Upon the issues thus formed the trial court heard evidence and at the conclusion thereof entered its judgment, the pertinent portion of which is as follows:
[65 N.E.2d 647]
‘* * * It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the order heretofore entered herein on September 16, 1937 be and the same is hereby modified and the plaintiff is ordered to pay into the office of the clerk of this court, the sum of Eighty-five ($85.00) Dollars, each and every month commencing as of this date said sums to be paid to the defendant for the support of Ruth Elizabeth Crowe and Robert Crowe. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff have the care and custody of Ruth Elizabeth Crowe and Robert Crowe from July 1, 1945 to September 1, 1945, and that he have such care and custody each year hereafter from June 15th to September 1st, and that during the time he has such custody, the order for support of said minor children be and the same is suspended, during the time as such minor children are in the care and custody of plaintiff during each summer. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff pay the sum of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars for the use of defendant's attorney, on or before 60 days from the date of this order. And the court now being advised that the plaintiff has paid the defendant the sum of Sixty ($60.00) Dollars for transportation of said minor children, Ruth Elizabeth Crowe and Robert Crowe, from Mountain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sebastian v. Sebastian, No. 27A02-8702-CV-00085
...the best interests of the child to do so. See Lubeznik v. Liddy (1985), Ind.App., 477 N.E.2d 947, trans. denied; Crowe v. Crowe (1946), 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645; see also McRight v. McRight (1984), Ala.Civ.App., 444 So.2d 869; Harrison v. Harrison (1969), 170 Colo. 397, 462 P.2d 119;......
-
DeLong v. DeLong, No. 2--673A131
...to state as a matter of law that the husband should have borne a greater share of the cost of the services. In Crowe v. Crowe (1946), 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645 a 'very meagre allowance' of $50.00 was awarded and held not to constitute an abuse of discretion. Similarly we are unable, i......
-
Renard v. Renard, No. 18719
...for. The question presented is one involving sound judicial discretion rather than a hard and fast rule of law. Crowe v. Crowe, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645; Weber v. Redding, 1928, 200 Ind. 448, 163 N.E. 269; Johnson v. Smith, 1931, 203 Ind. 214, 176 N.E. 705; 17 Am.Jur. (Divorce ......
-
Maxwell v. Maxwell, No. 18812
...be awarded to the one against whom divorce was decreed. [Citing] 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 309.'' In the case of Crowe v. Crowe, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645, 647, this court 'It is the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction that in controversies of this nature the right of the father ......
-
Sebastian v. Sebastian, No. 27A02-8702-CV-00085
...the best interests of the child to do so. See Lubeznik v. Liddy (1985), Ind.App., 477 N.E.2d 947, trans. denied; Crowe v. Crowe (1946), 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645; see also McRight v. McRight (1984), Ala.Civ.App., 444 So.2d 869; Harrison v. Harrison (1969), 170 Colo. 397, 462 P.2d 119;......
-
DeLong v. DeLong, No. 2--673A131
...to state as a matter of law that the husband should have borne a greater share of the cost of the services. In Crowe v. Crowe (1946), 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645 a 'very meagre allowance' of $50.00 was awarded and held not to constitute an abuse of discretion. Similarly we are unable, i......
-
Renard v. Renard, No. 18719
...for. The question presented is one involving sound judicial discretion rather than a hard and fast rule of law. Crowe v. Crowe, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645; Weber v. Redding, 1928, 200 Ind. 448, 163 N.E. 269; Johnson v. Smith, 1931, 203 Ind. 214, 176 N.E. 705; 17 Am.Jur. (Divorce ......
-
Maxwell v. Maxwell, No. 18812
...be awarded to the one against whom divorce was decreed. [Citing] 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 309.'' In the case of Crowe v. Crowe, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645, 647, this court 'It is the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction that in controversies of this nature the right of the father ......