Dorsey v. Dorsey, 22703
| Decision Date | 25 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 22703,22703 |
| Citation | 28 Colo.App. 63,470 P.2d 581 |
| Parties | Bernadene DORSEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lewis E. DORSEY, Defendant in Error. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Richard N. Doyle, David B. Emmert, Greeley, for plaintiff in error.
Ralph E. Waldo, Jr., Greeley, for defendant in error.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff in error was defendant below and will hereinafter be referred to as defendant and defendant in error was plaintiff below and will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff.
The parties were divorced in 1963 and the custody of the minor daughters, Sidnia Dorsey and Lewette Dorsey, was awarded to defendant. Regarding support, an order was entered August 5, 1963, which ordered plaintiff to pay to defendant the sum of $150.00 per month alimony and $75.00 per month per child as child support.
On the basis of a contempt citation, a subsequent order was entered on June 16, 1965, which provided as follows:
'IT IS ORDERED, THEREFORE, THAT plaintiff is not in contempt of this Court; that plaintiff is in arrears in alimony and support payments in the sum of $350.00 as of June 1, 1965 and that said arrearage be paid at the rate of $50.00 per month commencing in June, 1965; that Plaintiff pay alimony in the sum of $150.00 and support in the sum of $150.00 forthwith for the month of June, 1965 and monthly thereafter as before ordered; that of said sum the Clerk pay $75.00 per month directly to Sidnia Dorsey and the balance to Defendant; that Plaintiff pay on or before August 1, 1965, for the benefit of Defendant's attorney the sum of $75.00 for his services; that all payments be made through the registry of the Court.'
On July 16, 1966, plaintiff was again cited for contempt of court for failure to make payments as ordered. Just prior to the hearing on this citation, plaintiff filed a petition for reduction of alimony. The court held two hearings; one on the contempt citation and the other on the petition for reduction of alimony. The evidence disclosed that plaintiff was $475.00 in arrearage in his alimony payments; that the daughter, Sidnia, had attended Colorado State University during the past year; that plaintiff had paid all of her expenses in the approximate amount of $2,250.00 for the school year; and that he had paid $394.93 to the daughter, Lewette Dorsey. These latter payments consisted of $300.00 paid for a high school trip for Lewette to the East Coast, $20.00 for a Christmas gift in 1965, $30.00 for rental of ski equipment, $14.93 for insurance, birthday gift of $10.00 and $20.00 for an undisclosed purpose.
Plaintiff claims credit for the excess paid to Sidnia to offset the additional amount owed as support for Lewette. None of the amounts paid for either daughter was paid through the registry of the court.
On the claim for reduction of the alimony, plaintiff testified that he could not afford to send one daughter to college and have the other daughter start college in the fall if he had to keep up a payment schedule as ordered by the court; that he had to render financial assistance to an emancipated daughter; that he had quit his job and had gone into business for himself with another person; that he owned one-half of the business; that his take-home pay had been substantially reduced and that his monthly take-home pay from the business was $640.00 per month.
Defendant had started working since the prior hearing and was now making $230.00 per month take-home pay.
Financial statements of the parties were filed an the court heard extensive testimony as to the financial situation of the parties.
At the conclusion of the two hearings the court found that the plaintiff was in arrears $475.00 in back alimony; that the plaintiff had paid sufficient amounts outside the registry of the court to more than pay his obligation for the support of the two minor daughters and that he was not in arrears or in contempt of court. The court ordered that alimony be reduced to $100.00 per month effective September 1, 1966; that plaintiff pay $50.00 per month to the defendant for the support of Lewette or until she became of age or emancipated; and that the defendant pay $50.00 per month to defendant for the support of the daughter, Sidnia; all of which sums were to be paid through the registry of the court. It was further ordered that the plaintiff pay direct for the necessary college expenses of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andler v. Andler
...of the district court, when that can be done without injustice to the divorced mother. (Ediger v. Ediger, supra; Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo.App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970); Martin v. Martin, 59 Wash.2d 468, 368 P.2d 170 (1962); and Gould v. Awapara, 365 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Civ.App.1963). See also, ......
-
Marriage of Peper, In re, 75-165
...of the marriage, together with evidence of lower earnings by the husband; hence they are binding on review. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo.App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970). Moreover, the court was correct in applying the plain meaning of the contractual provision relating to college expenses, quoted......
-
Baker v. Baker
...he cannot claim as a credit against this obligation sums voluntarily paid in excess of his support obligation. See Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo.App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970). V. Finally, husband contends that the court's award of attorney's fees to the wife is erroneous. The court awarded fees ......
-
Marriage of Pusey, In re, 89CA1982
...when dealing with matters such as are at issue here, special considerations of an equitable nature arise. See Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo.App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970). See also Griffith v. Griffith, 152 Colo. 292, 381 P.2d 455 (1963); In re Marriage of Franklin, 634 P.2d 1032 (Colo.App.1981).......
-
ARTICLE 10
...could not be set off against accrued overdue installments which were owed to the mother on behalf of another child. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo. App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970). The general rule was to the effect that when a father was required by a divorce decree to pay to the mother money for ......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...could not be set off against accrued overdue installments which were owed to the mother on behalf of another child. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo. App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970). The general rule was to the effect that when a father was required by a divorce decree to pay to the mother money for ......