Fisher v. Fisher

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FRENCH, J.
• Citation: Fisher v. Fisher, 283 P. 1096, 155 Wash. 272 (Wash. 1930)
• Decision Date: 16 January 1930
• Docket Number: 22026.
• Parties: FISHER v. FISHER.

283 P. 1096

155 Wash. 272

FISHER v. FISHER.

No. 22026.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 16, 1930

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; William J. Steinert, Judge.

Suit by Anna M. Fisher against Charles E. Fisher. From a decree reducing the amount which defendant was required to pay, by a divorce decree, for the support of the minor child of the parties, plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Hyland Elvidge & Alvord and Tucker & Tucker, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Harry J. Kuen, Charles H. Heighton, and G. Russ Bailey, all of Seattle, for respondent.

FRENCH J.

Appellant and respondent were divorced in the year 1920; the decree awarding to the wife certain cash, the custody of their minor child, and requiring the respondent to pay the sum of $35 a month for the support of such child.

By a petition properly filed, respondent asked to be relieved from making any further payment for the support of the boy, now about 9 years of age. The trial court reduced the payments to $17.50 a month for a period of one year and until the further order of the court.

Respondent owns a farm near Kent, Wash., which is quite heavily incumbered, owns a large amount of farming equipment, is in the business of buying and selling live stock, and carries on quite extensive business operations. He has since remarried, and, in addition thereto, furnishes considerable money for the support of his mother and sister and, although it was claimed on the trial that the money furnished to the mother and sister was the repayment of money loaned, we think the record clearly establishes that at that time at least the respondent was not indebted in any amount to his mother, and that such sums as he is now furnishing are voluntary contributions on his part.

The record further shows that the appellant by unfortunate investments lost most of the money which was awarded to her by the divorce decree. The record also shows that she has from time to time been able to save small sums of money which she has placed in a savings bank or in building and loan association shares; this money being saved for the purpose of providing for the future education of her son.

Matters such as these present only questions of fact, and are generally speaking, to be left largely to the discretion of the trial court, who, through his opportunity to listen to the testimony of the witnesses personally is better enabled to...