Georgedes v. Georgedes, 17073
| Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 17073,17073 |
| Citation | 627 P.2d 44 |
| Parties | John A. GEORGEDES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Boni A. GEORGEDES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
George H. Speciale, Salt Lake City, for defendant-appellant.
Therald N. Jensen, Price, Clifford L. Ashton, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from a divorce decree, assigning error in the division of property and the denial of alimony and attorney's fees.
The parties were married in 1972. No children were born to this marriage. Both had been married before. Defendant had one child by her prior marriage, and plaintiff had two children by his. Into this new marriage, plaintiff brought a home and a business, both subject to purchase-money obligations, and a child-support obligation for his two children (who lived with his former wife) of $250 per month plus insurance premiums. Defendant brought furniture and other items of personal property, and a Social Security survivor's benefit that provided support for her son. Within the first year of their marriage, plaintiff put the title to the home and business in joint tenancy with defendant.
From the beginning, and through its 7-year duration, this was not a conventional marriage relationship. After only one week, defendant moved her seven-year-old son into her bedroom and plaintiff moved into the basement, which became his bedroom for the duration of the marriage. During the initial years, partly because of the erratic schedule in his laundry and dry cleaning businesses, plaintiff took many of his meals out, and for the last three years he had all of his meals in restaurants. After the early part of the marriage, defendant generally declined to go out with plaintiff. Defendant attempted to arrange marriage counselling, but plaintiff refused to cooperate.
After a trial in which both plaintiff and defendant testified and provided written evidence, the court granted a divorce to both parties, and awarded defendant the furniture and household effects acquired during the marriage. In the actions defendant challenges on this appeal, the court divided the other property essentially by allocating each party the property he or she had brought into the marriage. This gave plaintiff the home and business.
Defendant contends that the court ignored the lawful marriage and the joint tenancy conveyance in its settlement and support decisions, but we find no evidence of this. Also without merit is the contention that the district court erred in considering the fact that because plaintiff provided the entire support for defendant's son, defendant had been able to save the Social Security payments ($368 per month at the time of trial) and thus accumulate more than $25,000 as a financial benefit defendant derived from the marriage. We find no fault with that as a factor for consideration in the circumstances of this case.
The record contains relatively little evidence of the present value of the home and business allotted to the plaintiff, but that is not a reversible deficiency where, as here, the court's decree simply puts the parties to a second marriage of relatively short real duration back into sole ownership of the properties they brought into the marriage. This is not a case where the court would be required to conclude from the evidence that defendant's "efforts ... in the monetary success of the marriage," English v. English, Utah, 565 P.2d 409, 411 (1977), made such a contribution to the increased value of marital property that she would be entitled to share in that value in the property settlement. Also important to be weighed in connection with the propriety of the property settlement is the fact that plaintiff was made responsible for all of the outstanding debts of the parties. If his property increased in value during the marriage, so did his total debts, from $92,000 to over $123,000. All in all, we cannot conclude that the appellant proved "such a serious inequity as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." Searle v. Searle, Utah, 522 P.2d 697, 700 (1974); Jesperson v. Jesperson, Utah, 610 P.2d 326 (1980); Hacking v. Hacking, Utah, 620 P.2d 71 (1980).
In the circumstances of this case, where defendant is employed and there is no evidence that she is unable to pay her own obligations, the decision to award no attorney's fees is also well within the allowable range of the trial court's discretion. Adams v. Adams, Utah, 593 P.2d 147, 149 (1979).
As the trial court compared the needs and separate incomes of the parties plaintiff from his business and defendant from her employment as a teacher of business subjects at College of Eastern Utah the court concluded that the defendant should have no alimony because "plaintiff does not have the ability to pay alimony" and "defendant is not in need of alimony for her support or in any event, that her need is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kiley
...by the parties to a divorce.").49 West , 576 B.R. at 232 ; see also Preston v. Preston , 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982) ; Georgedes v. Georgedes , 627 P.2d 44 (Utah 1981) ; Jesperson v. Jesperson , 610 P.2d 326 (Utah 1980) ; Humphreys v. Humphreys , 520 P.2d 193 (Utah 1974).50 Burt v. Burt ,......
-
Mortensen v. Mortensen
...to the marriage or inherited during the marriage. We there said: Following the principle we have approved in cases like Georgedes v. Georgedes, Utah, 627 P.2d 44 (1981); Jesperson v. Jesperson, Utah, 610 P.2d 326 (1980); and Humphreys v. Humphreys, Utah, 520 P.2d 193 (1974), the district co......
-
Newmeyer v. Newmeyer, 19183
...to the marriage or inherited during the marriage. We there said: Following the principle we have approved in cases like Georgedes v. Georgedes, Utah, 627 P.2d 44 (1981); Jesperson v. Jesperson, Utah, 610 P.2d 326 (1980); and Humphreys v. Humphreys, Utah, 520 P.2d 193 (1974), the district co......
-
Cox v. Cox
...later in life, a trial court may properly attempt to restore the parties to their premarital status. See, e.g., Georgedes v. Georgedes, 627 P.2d 44, 45 (Utah 1981) (trial court did not abuse discretion to put parties to short second marriage back into sole ownership of premarital properties......
-
Family Law Update 1988
...award alimony in the face of an appropriate change of circumstance where it was initially waived or not awarded. Georgedes v. Georgedes, 627 P.2d 44 (Utah 1981). This question reached the Utah Court of Appeals in Kinsman v. Kinsman, 748 P.2d 210 (Utah App. 1988). In this case, the trial cou......
-
Views from the Bench
...real and personal property he or she brought into the marriage. See Preston v. Preston, 646 P.2d 705 (Utah 1982); Georgedes v. Georgedes, 627 P.2d 44 (Utah 1981) Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d 326 (Utah 1980); Humphreys v. Humphreys, 520 P.2d 193 (Utah 1974). In the past decade our appell......
-
Evolution of Alimony in Utah
...alimony may be made where not originally awarded. Kinsman v. Kinsman, 748 P.2d 210, 212 (Utah App. 1988); see also Georgedes v. Georgedes, 627 P.2d 44 (Utah 1981); and Sect. 30-3-5(5), Utah Code Ann. (1989) which provides for automatic termination of alimony on remarriage unless the decree ......