Garvin v. Garvin, 15015.
| Citation | 118 P.2d 768,108 Colo. 415 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 15015. |
| Parties | GARVIN v. GARVIN. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.
Action for divorce by Evelyn Garvin against John B. Garvin, wherein an order was entered requiring defendant to pay a certain amount for support of minor son of the parties. To review a judgment vacating the support order, the plaintiff brings error and applies for supersedeas.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
William A. Black, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Lowell D. Hunt, of Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, brings this case here by writ of error to review the action of the trial court in vacating an order requiring defendant in error to pay $25 a month for support of a fourteen-year old son of the contesting parties who formerly were husband and wife, and in cancelling delinquent payments in the sum of $87.50. Reference will be made to the parties as they appeared in the action for divorce in which defendant in error was defendant.
Plaintiff received a final decree of divorce February 5, 1929, at which time the son was two years old, and defendant was ordered to pay $35 a month into the registry of the court for his support 'until the further order of the court.' Payments were regularly made under this order until March 28 1938, when the court ordered them reduced to $25 a month, in compliance with defendant's filed petition showing a change in conditions and a reduction in his salary. The twenty-five dollar payments were made until January, 1941 when defendant, without waiting to be cited for contempt for failure to comply with the order, filed another petition under the rule indicated in Duvall v. Duvall, 95 Colo. 95, 32 P.2d 842, in which it was alleged, inter alia that he had suffered a serious accident on December 29, 1940, and that as a result thereof he would be totally disabled from performing any labor for approximately three months; that he then was drawing a salary of $140 per month from the Public Service Company of Colorado, which represented a reduction in his income of $68 per month; that he had incurred an indebtedness of $355, on which he had to pay $50.75 a month; that he had insurance to keep up which cost him $5.50 per month, all in addition to necessary expenses for food, laundry, clothing, etc., amounting to $47.50 a month, and rent, gas, electricity and heating at a cost of $35 a month. It also was alleged in the petition that plaintiff had remarried and was earning $110 a month. Defendant prayed that the former order be modified and delinquent payments cancelled 'until such time as' he 'is able to resume his regular employment.'
Two grounds are urged for reversal, namely: 1. The trial court abused its discretion in relieving defendant from paying the sum of $87.50 representing accrued payments of support money for the child. 2. That the trial court erred in cancelling the order requiring defendant to pay $25 a month for the support of the minor son.
1. We are of the opinion that the trial court was without authority to cancel the accrued payments of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Elliott
...in Colorado been recognized as the primary responsibility of the father. McQuade v. McQuade, 145 Colo. 218, 358 P.2d 470; Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768; Desch v. Desch, 55 Colo. 79, 132 P. 60. See generally 59 Am.Jur.2d Parent and Child § 51. The passage of the first nonsupp......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...a decree for support money speaks as of the date of its entry and therefore of necessity can only relate to the future. Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768; Russ v. Russ, 128 Colo. 321, 262 P.2d 264; Gier v. Gier, 139 Colo. 289, 339 P.2d 677 and Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. ---......
-
Engleman v. Engleman
...that past due installments under a valid support order constitute a debt and are in and of themselves judgments. See Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768; Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534; Ferkovich v. Ferkovich, 130 Colo. 228, 274 P.2d 602; Burke v. Burke, 127 Colo. 257,......
-
Drazich v. Drazich, 20404
...A modifying order or decree relates only to future payments and can be effective only from the time of its entry. Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768 (1941). The mere filing of a petition to modify support payments and even having a hearing thereon without proceeding to a conclusi......