Draime v. Draime, No. 19206
| Docket Nº | No. 1 |
| Citation | 173 N.E.2d 70, 132 Ind.App. 99 |
| Case Date | March 29, 1961 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 70
v.
Linus F. DRAIME, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1961.
[132 Ind.App. 100]
Page 71
Cecil C. Tague, Sr., Brookville, Owen S. Boling, Indianapolis, for appellant.[132 Ind.App. 101] Ewing E. Wright, Osgood, Paul V. Wycoff, Batesville, for appellee.
AX, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action for absolute divorce. Appellant brought this action against appellee, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment.
Appellant in her complaint, asked that she be granted alimony in the amount of $5,000, or in lieu thereof, be declared the sole owner of a tavern business, as well as all the personal property located therein.
The court granted appellant an absolute divorce and awarded her title to all the assets of the parties, including the tavern business subject to all liabilities, but excluding a 1955 Oldsmobile owned by appellee which he was permitted to retain. In addition appellee was awarded judgment in the sum of $5,500 for his interest in the property belonging to both parties.
Appellant, although satisfied with the grant of an absolute divorce, nevertheless has brought this appeal, challenging the discretion of the lower court in awarding a monetary judgment of $5,500 to appellee.
The sole question presented to this court is whether the lower court abused its discretion in making this adjustment of the property rights of the parties.
Page 72
It is contended by appellant that the judgment failed to award her alimony and that such failure is an abuse of discretion.
The law has laid down certain rules which must by necessity govern the reviewing court. That divorce courts have much discretion in determining the amount of alimony that shall be awarded in any particular case is a rule so well settled that we need not burden this opinion by citing authority. It is equally well settled that it is not mandatory [132 Ind.App. 102] that the trial court grant alimony in each and every case. It has been held in certain cases that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award alimony to a wife who was granted a divorce. Ralston v. Ralston, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817; Gibble v. Gibble, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 60, 40 N.E.2d 347; Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 114. Whether alimony shall be awarded depends upon the existing property of the parties and its source. Shula v. Shula, 1956, 235 Ind. 210, 132 N.E.2d 612. Also, to be taken into consideration is the conduct of the parties toward each other. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 1955, 125 Ind.App. 596, 125 N.E.2d 816.
The appellant propounded to the court in her complaint two possible alternatives, which might be used in settling the property rights of the parties. She asked that 'she be granted alimony in the amount of Five thousand ($5,000) Dollars or in lieu thereof, be declared the sole owner of said tavern business and personal property located therein.'
The court accepted the latter by granting her the business and personal property, but now she complains that it erred by not granting her alimony also.
'An appellant cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller, No. 269
...weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility or demeanor of the witnesses who testified. In the case of Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d 70, Tr. Denied, Judge Ax of this court 'The law has laid down certain rules which must by necessity govern the reviewing court.......
-
Terry v. Terry, No. 472A169
...whether the title at the time of trial is held by parties jointly or by one of them individually. Grant, supra; Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d 70. In Proctor v. Proctor (1955), 125 Ind.App. 692, 125 N.E.2d 443, the trial court was affirmed in a case where the husband w......
-
Olson v. Olson, No. 2-881A264
...will not be disturbed unless either an abuse of discretion or contrary to law. Inkoff v. Inkoff, supra; Draime v. Draime (1961) 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d The child support statute provides in part: "(d) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child reaches his ......
-
Stigall v. Stigall, No. 971A177
...mixed, and whether title at the time of the trial is held by the parties jointly or by one of them individually. Draime v. Draime (1961) 132 Ind.App. 99, 103, 173 N.E.2d 70; Proctor v. Proctor (1955) 125 Ind.App. 692, 125 N.E.2d 443. See also, Burns' Ind.Stat., 1946 Repl., Sec. 3--1217 and ......
-
Miller v. Miller, No. 269
...weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility or demeanor of the witnesses who testified. In the case of Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d 70, Tr. Denied, Judge Ax of this court 'The law has laid down certain rules which must by necessity govern the reviewing court.......
-
Terry v. Terry, No. 472A169
...whether the title at the time of trial is held by parties jointly or by one of them individually. Grant, supra; Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d 70. In Proctor v. Proctor (1955), 125 Ind.App. 692, 125 N.E.2d 443, the trial court was affirmed in a case where the husband w......
-
Olson v. Olson, No. 2-881A264
...will not be disturbed unless either an abuse of discretion or contrary to law. Inkoff v. Inkoff, supra; Draime v. Draime (1961) 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d The child support statute provides in part: "(d) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child reaches his twent......
-
Stigall v. Stigall, No. 971A177
...mixed, and whether title at the time of the trial is held by the parties jointly or by one of them individually. Draime v. Draime (1961) 132 Ind.App. 99, 103, 173 N.E.2d 70; Proctor v. Proctor (1955) 125 Ind.App. 692, 125 N.E.2d 443. See also, Burns' Ind.Stat., 1946 Repl., Sec. 3--1217 and ......