Grant v. Grant

Decision Date20 October 1967
Docket NumberNo. 20656,20656
PartiesNorma J. GRANT, Appellant, v. Walter H. GRANT, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Bloom & Bloom, Columbia City, for appellant.

Gates, Gates & McNagny, Columbia City, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

This is an appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court wherein the Appellant was the plaintiff below and the Appellee was the defendant and cross-complainant. After the submission of the cause and at the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court entered the following finding and judgment:

'The Court having heretofore heard the evidence in the cause herein together with the argument of counsel, and having taken said matter under advisement, now finds for the plaintiff and that the allegations of her complaint are true and that she is entitled to a decree of divorce from the defendant.

'The Court further finds that the plaintiff is a suitable and proper person to have the care, custody and control of the minor child of the parties, namely Jerome Grant, born October 3, 1957, and that she is entitled to an allowance for the care and support of said child and that she is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs laid out and expended herein.

'The Court further finds the plaintiff is entitled to alimony, and that she is the owner of all personal property now in her possession including any and all coins, except a pair of binoculars which belongs to the defendant; that she is the owner of a Polaroid camera at Wolf & Dessaur, Fort Wayne, Indiana; that the defendant is the owner of all personal property now in his possession located at Crooked Lake, Whitley County, Indiana except an antique chest and six serving bowls in the small cottage; the defendant is owner of all personal property located at Columbia City, Indiana, including all coins, fixtures and furnishings of the C. C. Coin Shop; that the defendant is the owner of the automobile now in his possession; one-half interest in a Riviera Cruiser; that the defendant is the owner of any and all golf carts he may have purchased; that the defendant is the owner of all real estate now in the names of the parties; that the defendant is entitled to visitation and temporary custody privileges of the child of the parties; that the defendant should maintain and keep current the premium payments on all insurance policies which either he or the plaintiff now own and were heretofore purchased for and/or on behalf of the child of the parties, and that the proceeds of said policies be used for the college education of said child, and if said child does now (sic) attend college then the proceeds of said policies be turned over to said child upon his reaching the age of 21 years; that the defendant provide the cost of educating said child beyond the 12th year for a period of four years providing his maintaining the scholastic average necessary to remain in the college which he attends; that the defendant turn over to the plaintiff all coins belonging to Jerome Grant to be held for said child.

'IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between the plaintiff and the defendant be and the same are hereby dissolved and the plaintiff is granted an absolute divorce from the defendant.

'It is further ordered that the plaintiff have the care, custody and control of Jerome Grant, born October 3, 1957, subject to the right of the defendant to visit said child on Wednesday evenings between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., beginning May 15, 1966; and the defendant shall have the temporary custody of said child for two weeks during the summer months of the defendant's vacation, and during Christmas vacation beginning Christmas morning at 10:00 A.M., for a period of four days every other year beginning with the year 1966, provided this does not interfere with said child's school education; that the defendant shall have the right to have the custody of said child on said child's birthday between the hours of 4:00 and 8:00 p.m. every other year beginning with the year 1966; that all of defendant's visitation and custody privileges shall be conditioned upon the defendant being with said child at all times and when the defendant is not working.

'It is further ordered that the defendant pay to the Clerk of the Whitley Circuit Court the sum of $25.00 on or before May 14, 1966, and each Saturday thereafter for the use of the plaintiff in the maintenance and support of said child; that the defendant pay all medical, dental and hospital expenses for said child.

'It is further ordered that the defendant pay over to William Bloom, plaintiff's attorney, on or before May 30, 1966, the sum of $1700.00, the balance of said attorney fees due to said attorney.

'It is further ordered that the four paid-up annuity policies of insurance on defendant's life issued by the Franklin Life Insurance Company, and the policy on Jerome Grant's life issued by the Ohio State Life Insurance Company No 402920, and the policy on Jerome's life issued by the New York Life Insurance Company, No. 26948438, be held and used for Jerome Grant upon his reaching the age of 21 years if he should not attend college. In case the defendant Walter Grant should not live until the aforesaid Ohio State and New York Life policies are paid in full said premium payments shall be a charge against the estate of Walter Grant; that any and all necessary college expenses for four years, not covered by the benefits from the aforesaid Life Insurance policies, shall be paid by the defendant so long as said child remains in college. That the proceeds from said policies shall be turned over to said child at age 21, if he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Miller v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 26 Marzo 1970
    ...109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 114; Baker v. Baker, (1952), 123 Ind.App. 152, 108 N.E.2d 70.' In the more recent case of Grant v. Grant (1967) Ind.App., 230 N.E.2d 339, Judge Cooper of this court explicitly and very competently sets forth the role of the Appellate Court in reference to abuse o......
  • Stigall v. Stigall
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 2 Febrero 1972
    ...of the witnesses who testified.' In Miller v. Miller, supra, the court further said: 'In the more recent case of Grant v. Grant (1967) 141 Ind.App. 521, 230 N.E.2d 339, Judge Cooper of this court explicitly and very competently sets forth the role of the Appellate Court in reference to abus......
  • Terry v. Terry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Junio 1974
    ...v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind.App. 38, 169 N.E.2d 130. In Miller v. Miller, supra, this court, quoting Judge Cooper in Grant v. Grant (1967), 141 Ind.App. 521, 230 N.E.2d 339, phrased '. . . Therefore, the exercise of a trial court's discretion is not reviewable on appeal. It is only the abuse o......
  • Hibbard v. Hibbard
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 10 Septiembre 1974
    ...130. In Miller v. Miller, ((1970), 146 Ind.App. 455, 256 N.E.2d 589) supra, this court, quoting Judge Cooper in Grant v. Grant (1967), 141 Ind.App. 521, 230 N.E.2d 339, phrased '. . . Therefore, the exercise of a trial court's discretion is not reviewable on appeal. It is only the abuse of ......
  • 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