Grimditch v. Grimditch, 5161
| Decision Date | 18 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 5161,5161 |
| Citation | 71 Ariz. 237,226 P.2d 142 |
| Parties | GRIMDITCH v. GRIMDITCH. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Paul N. Roca, of Phoenix, for appellant. Philip F. LaFollette, of Madison, Wis., of counsel.
Frank W. Beer, of Phoenix, for appellee.
On motion for rehearing the appellant has called the court's attention to the fact that it failed to rule upon his assignment of error No. VII. In that assignment he charged that the trial court abused its discretion and therefore erred in imposing an onerous restriction upon him in its granting to him the right to the custody of his children during a portion of each year. Specifically the portion of the judgment of which complaint is made requires him to execute and post a continuing bond fixed by the court in the sum of $25,000 conditioned that defendant would safely return his minor children to the custody of their mother in Arizona at the termination of their visit with him and that he would not, during the period said children are in his custody, initiate any litigation outside the state of Arizona seeking a change in their custody or to in anywise modify the judgment of the Arizona court.
We must confess the oversight. We have examined the record carefully and so far as we are able to ascertain, it discloses no blot upon the character of appellant. On the contrary it would indicate that he is a highly respected, reliable and responsible citizen of the state of Pennsylvania. While it is true the trial court had the opportunity to observe the parties during the course of trial and discern whatever bitterness there existed between them at the time, yet we can find nothing in the record to justify the trial court in believing that appellant would deliberately or at all violate the judgment of that court. To maintain a continuing bond of $25,000 for the privilege of having his children with him for 30 days a year until 1952 and 60 days each year thereafter, we believe to be an undue burden upon appellant and that his character and his standing in the community in which he lived are such that the court would have been warranted in placing his children with him as provided for in the judgment without any undertaking whatsoever. In short, we find nothing in the record that justifies such action on the part of the trial court. We therefore hold that the lower court erred in requiring bond of him conditioned that he would abide by the terms of the judgment relating to the custody of his children.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCullough v. Hudspeth
...absent a showing of need therefor. Ellison v. Ellison, 48 Ala.App. 80, 83, 261 So.2d 911, 914 (1972); Grimditch v. Grimditch, 71 Ariz. 237, 238, 226 P.2d 142, 142 (1951) (per curiam); Massey v. James, 251 Ark. 217, 219, 471 S.W.2d 770, 771 (1971); Lyritzis v. Lyritzis, 55 App.Div.2d 946, 39......
-
Hatch v. Hatch
...community property * * *.' Grimditch v. Grimditch, 71 Ariz. 198, 203--204, 225 P.2d 489, 492 (1950), modified on other grounds, 71 Ariz. 237, 226 P.2d 142 (1951). And in Schwartz v. Schwartz, we 'There can be no question but that the husband and wife as long as they are such are equal owner......
-
Wood v. Wood
...accordingly a bond was justified. There is the contention that the facts of this case are so similar to those found in Grimditch v. Grimditch, 71 Ariz. 237, 226 P.2d 142, that the bond must be here struck down as it was there. However, a reading of the original opinion, Grimditch v. Grimdit......
-
Inman v. Williams
...the child, a court does not abuse its discretion by requiring a bond as a condition to visitation. See generally Grimditch v. Grimditch, 71 Ariz. 237, 226 P.2d 142, 142 (1951) (court struck down bond where there was nothing in the record to indicate that the father would violate a judgment ......