Fischer v. Fischer, 55.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 55.,55. |
| Citation | 30 N.W.2d 826,320 Mich. 176 |
| Parties | FISCHER v. FISCHER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids, in Chancery; Thaddeus B. Taylor, Judge.
Divorce action by Harry A. Fischer against Dorother B. Fischer, wherein a divorce was granted to plaintiff and defendant was awarded the custody of parties' minor child and plaintiff was ordered to pay $6 per week for child's support. From an order granting defendant's application for an amendment of the alimony provision of the decree, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, of Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellant.
Henry J. Milanowski, of Grand Rapids, for defendant and appellee.
A decree of divorce was granted to plainttiff Harry A. Fischer on February 4, 1946. Defendant Dorothy B. Fischer was awarded the care, custody, and education of their five year old son. Plaintiff was ordered to pay $6 per week for his supporot, maintenance, and care.
On May 9, 1947, defendant sought an amendment of the alimony provisions of the decree of divorce. Testimony on this issue was taken by the trial judge who heard the original cause. It was claimed by defendant that plaintiff testified at the original trial that he was earning only $30 per week. This he denied, and he aoso claimed that he is now earning less than at the time of trial. When the decree was entered the minor son wa living with his mother in the country. They subsequently moved to Grand Rapids, where the boy has since attended school. He mother testifieed that she attended school. boy's time occupied on Saturday s by taking musice lessons. She state that, because of a fractured ankle, she was not financially able to properly care from him on $6 per week, and that thier cost of living had increased. The joint farm property that was awarded to her had been recently rented for $23 per week.
At the conclusion of the testimony the trial judge stated that because of the confilicting claims he would ‘check the testimony over taken in the former case,’ adding, ‘I just don't remember.’ We are not provided with any further statement by the trial judges as to the result of his investigation, other than that expressed in the modified decree entere on June 16, 1947, in which plaintiff was order to pay the sum of $12 per week.
Plaintiff's appeal raises the single question of whether a proper showing was made by the defendant to support the modification of the decree of divorce. Ppaintiff's testimony established that at the time of the original hearing he was earning about $70 per week, and that at the time of the subsequest hearing he was earning about $60 per week.
We recently said in Remm v. Renn, 318 Mich. 230, 27 N.W.2d 618, 620:
‘The increased cost of living affects plaintiff as adversely as it does defendant and applies with equal froce to the cost of miantaining the child.’
The claimed inequity of the original decree does not of itself afford a basis for its modification. An application to modify a divorce decree is neither a rehearing of the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmiedeknecht v. Lucie
...to child support is neither a rehearing of the original case nor a review of the equities of the original judgment. Fischer v. Fischer (1948), 320 Mich. 176, 30 N.W.2d 826. To properly treat the issue before us it is necessary to review the evidence to determine if there were new facts or a......
-
Butler v. Butler, s. 66-68
...this record, that the circuit judge abused the discretion vested in him. Austin v. Austin, 308 Mich. 139, 13 N.W.2d 237; Fischer v. Fischer, 320 Mich. 176, 30 N.W.2d 826. We feel the same way concerning appellant's last 2 questions dealing with security for enforcement of the court's decree......
-
McCarthy v. McCarthy
...test is logical, because an application to modify a divorce decree is not a rehearing of the original case. See Fischer v. Fischer, 320 Mich. 176, 178, 30 N.W.2d 826 (1948). [192 MICHAPP 283] However, in this matter, alimony was awarded for a fixed period in contemplation that defendant wou......
-
Esslinger v. Esslinger, Docket No. 2473
...to require that the trial court at least hear the motion for the modification of the divorce judgment. See Fischer v. Fischer (1948), 320 Mich. 176, 30 N.W.2d 826. It certainly is within the discretion of the trial court to then deny the motion on the lack of competent evidence to support T......