Ghost v. Ghost, 12252
| Decision Date | 03 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 12252,12252 |
| Citation | 490 P.2d 339,26 Utah 2d 398 |
| Parties | d 398 George GHOST, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thelma GHOST, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Kenneth Rigtrup, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Grant Macfarlane, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
The plaintiff commenced these proceedings for a divorce and the defendant counterclaimed seeking a decree of separate maintenance. The court below awarded a divorce to the plaintiff, and the defendant is here seeking a reversal.
The parties were married on February 26, 1937, and continued to live together until their separation on November 29, 1969. Prior to December 31, 1959, the plaintiff had been employed by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad for a period of 48 years. After the plaintiff's retirement from his employment at the railroad, he continued to work at various places until 1965 when ill health prevented him from continuing. During the marriage the defendant inherited an apartment house which is now subject to probate proceedings in the district court. While the parties were living together defendant had control of the family finances and it was the practice of the plaintiff to turn over to the defendant his wages except for a small allowance for the plaintiff's needs. A substantial portion of the family savings was expended for repairs to the apartment house.
The court below found that for a long period of time prior to the separation of the parties that while they had lived together they had not cohabited. The court further found that prior to the separation the defendant had called the plaintiff vile names and had cursed him on numerous occasions. On or about November 29, 1969, the defendant threw the plaintiff's belongings out of the house and ordered him to leave. There was testimony in the record to the effect that the plaintiff was guilty of offensive conduct toward the defendant, and that he also called her vile names and also cursed her.
The court below concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of divorce. The court awarded to the defendant all of the property accumulated by the parties during the marriage, including the apartments and the balance of the bank account. The defendant receives as income from the apartments the sum of $245 per month and in addition thereto she receives the sum of $80.55 per month under the Railroad Retirement Act, and $21.70 from Social Security. The plaintiff receives $190.75 per month under the Railroad Retirement Act and $59.30 Social Security. The defendant was awarded attorney's fees in the sum of $125.
The defendant is here seeking a reversal and her main contention is that upon the divorce becoming final she will lose the right to receive the $80.55 under the Railroad Retirement Act. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant intend to resume the relationship of husband and wife, nor to live together. While it is true that the parties possess only limited income and that the entry of the divorce will result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerr v. Kerr
...ability of the respective parties to shoulder the expenses of litigation is a relevant inquiry in this regard, see Ghost v. Ghost, 26 Utah 2d 398, 490 P.2d 339 (1971).12 See Rule 76(a), U.R.C.P.; see also, LeGrande Johnson Corporation v. Peterson, 18 Utah 2d 260, 420 P.2d 615 (1966).13 For ......
-
Hansen v. Hansen, 13985
...v. Stevenson, 13 Utah 2d 153, 154, 369 P.2d 923 (1962); Curry v. Curry, 7 Utah 2d 198, 201, 321 P.2d 939 (1958).4 Ghost v. Ghost, 26 Utah 2d 398, 490 P.2d 339 (1971).5 Mitchell v. Mitchell (Utah), 527 P.2d 1359 ...