Debry v. Debry, 12435
| Decision Date | 17 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 12435,12435 |
| Citation | 27 Utah 2d 337,496 P.2d 92 |
| Parties | d 337 David William DeBRY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jarie Wilson DeBRY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Pete N. Vlahos, of Vlahos & Gale, Ogden, for defendant-appellant.
No brief filed and no oral argument in behalf of respondent.
The appellant, hereinafter called the wife, signed a stipulation and waiver in the original divorce matter without the benefit of counsel, and a default judgment was granted to the respondent, hereinafter called the husband, wherein the court approved and adopted the provisions of the signed stipulation. About five weeks thereafter and while the decree was still interlocutory, the wife moved to set aside the decree and her default and to permit her to file an answer and counterclaim. She claimed that she did not read or understand the stipulation and was induced by her husband to sign it under a false promise to drop the divorce proceedings.
The parties testified fully at the hearing on the motion, and the trial judge thereafter denied the motion. This appeal is from that ruling, although the wife devotes most of her brief to showing the injustice of the stipulation and the decree based upon it.
The stipulation and decree provided that the wife have the custody of the two minor children and that the husband pay to her for their support and maintenance the sum of $59 per month for each child. The decree further provided that if he would make the mortgage payments on the home amounting to $118 per month, he would receive credit for the child support payment. The decree awarded the home to the husband but gave his wife the right to live in it until she remarries or until the youngest child reaches the age of 21, whichever first occurs.
It thus appears that in following the stipulation the court may have abused his discretion, for in awarding the mortgaged home to the husband he permitted his equity therein to be augmented with money which should have been made available for the support of the children. No provision is made for the husband to make any contribution to the support of the children except to furnish a roof over their heads. By the decree the husband increases his own wealth each time he makes a mortgage payment in lieu of support payment.
Where little children are involved, the court is not obligated to adopt or follow a stipulation of the parties which would not adequately provide for the care and welfare of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utah Dept. of Social Services v. Adams
...of the children" doctrine properly drives most decisions, see, e.g., Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51, 54 (Utah 1982); DeBry v. DeBry, 27 Utah 2d 337, 496 P.2d 92, 93-94 (1972); Curtis v. Curtis, 789 P.2d 717, 719 (Utah Ct.App.1990), it is perplexing that the Department persists in attempting to......
-
Bushell v. Bushell, 17535
...v. Wiese, 24 Utah 2d 236, 469 P.2d 504 (1970). The primary concern of the trial court is the welfare of the children. Debry v. Debry, 27 Utah 2d 337, 496 P.2d 92 (1972). In view of all the evidence and circumstances, including testimony to the effect that the defendant had taken the boy to ......