Fought v. Fought, No. 7379

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtLOCKWOOD; UDALL, V. C. J., and JENNINGS
Citation382 P.2d 667,94 Ariz. 187
Docket NumberNo. 7379
Decision Date20 June 1963
PartiesDorothy J. FOUGHT, Appellant, v. Donald Earl FOUGHT, Appellee.

Page 667

382 P.2d 667
94 Ariz. 187
Dorothy J. FOUGHT, Appellant,
v.
Donald Earl FOUGHT, Appellee.
No. 7379.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division.
June 20, 1963.

Kenneth Biaett, Phoenix, for appellant.

Charles Christakis, Phoenix, for appellee.

[94 Ariz. 188] LOCKWOOD, Justice.

Appellant, Dorothy J. Fought (now Dorothy Biaett), obtained a default divorce decree from appellee, Donald Earl Fought, on December 7, 1959, which awarded appellant custody of the only child of the parties and required appellee to pay the sum of $75.00 per month for support of the child. One year after the divorce the appellant remarried. Appellee subsequently petitioned the superior court to modify the divorce decree by reducing the child support payments, and filed supporting affidavits showing that his monthly expense now exceeded his monthly take home wages. A counter-petition was filed by appellant to have the child support increased to $100.00 per month. After receiving testimony the trial court found that there had 'been changed circumstances on the part of both parties,' and ordered the support payments be reduced to $50.00 per month.

Appellant appeals from that order on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in that there was no evidence before the trial court supporting a change of circumstances upon which such modification of the decree could be made. She claims that there was only a showing of the appellant's remarriage and that, standing alone, is not sufficient upon which to base an order reducing the amount of child support payments.

Page 668

To determine that there has been an abuse of discretion, as appellant claims, the record must be devoid of competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court. Further, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence it must be taken in the strongest manner in favor of the appellee and in support of the court's findings, and a judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it. Roberts v. Malott, 80 Ariz. 66, 292 P.2d 838 (1956).

There was testimony from the husband that he was making over $82.00 per week 'take home pay' when the divorce decree was handed down, and that his 'take home pay' was now about $10.00 per week less than it was at the time of the divorce. Appellant claims, however, that the payroll records established that just prior to the hearing on the petition appellee was making over $85.00 per week. As to this the employer stated explicitly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 practice notes
  • In re $15,379 In U.S. Currency, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 22, 2016
    ...to upholding the trial court's decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support’ the decision."), quoting Fought v. Fought , 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667, 668 (1963).¶ 10 On appeal, the state offers several arguments to support the trial court's ruling, essentially echoing the court......
  • State v. Green, No. CR-99-0569-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • August 17, 2001
    ...favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is `devoid of competent evidence to support' the decision.") (quoting Fought v. Fought, 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667, 668 ¶ 29 By holding that prior convictions more than ten years old are not admissible here, the court has, without expr......
  • In re In re, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 18, 2016
    ...favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is `devoid of competent evidence to support' the decision."), quoting Fought v. Fought, 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667, 668 (1963). ¶ 10 On appeal, the state offers several arguments to support the trial court's ruling, essentially echoing......
  • Barron v. Barron, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0413 FC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • July 31, 2018
    ...evidence to support’ the decision," Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999) (quoting Fought v. Fought , 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667 (1963) ).¶ 7 As relevant here, A.R.S. § 25-403.02(B) (2018) requires the superior court to adopt a parenting plan that is "[c]o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
79 cases
  • In re $15,379 In U.S. Currency, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 22, 2016
    ...to upholding the trial court's decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support’ the decision."), quoting Fought v. Fought , 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667, 668 (1963).¶ 10 On appeal, the state offers several arguments to support the trial court's ruling, essentially echoing the court......
  • State v. Green, No. CR-99-0569-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • August 17, 2001
    ...favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is `devoid of competent evidence to support' the decision.") (quoting Fought v. Fought, 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667, 668 ¶ 29 By holding that prior convictions more than ten years old are not admissible here, the court has, without expr......
  • In re In re, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 18, 2016
    ...favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is `devoid of competent evidence to support' the decision."), quoting Fought v. Fought, 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667, 668 (1963). ¶ 10 On appeal, the state offers several arguments to support the trial court's ruling, essentially echoing......
  • Barron v. Barron, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0413 FC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • July 31, 2018
    ...evidence to support’ the decision," Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999) (quoting Fought v. Fought , 94 Ariz. 187, 188, 382 P.2d 667 (1963) ).¶ 7 As relevant here, A.R.S. § 25-403.02(B) (2018) requires the superior court to adopt a parenting plan that is "[c]o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT