Hayne v. Hayne, 2
| Decision Date | 21 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 449 P.2d 633,9 Ariz.App. 99 |
| Parties | Orlando V. HAYNE, Appellant, v. Luella R. HAYNE, Appellee. 568. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Moore, Vlahovich & Greenwood, by Dushan Vlahovich, Bisbee, for appellant.
Riley & Slaughter, by Richard J. Riley, Bisbee, for appellee.
In this appeal, the husband questions the amount of alimony awarded to his wife in a divorce decree.
Though the final decree in this action made distribution between the spouses of various items of property acquired during the marriage, the only part of the judgment as to which an appeal was taken is that awarding to the wife:
'* * * the sum of $100.00 per month for her care, support and maintenance, as alimony, for a period of two years, beginning January 1, 1968, and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter; such payment shall be reduced January 1, 1970, to the sum of $75.00 per month and shall continue thereafter until such time as LUELLA R. HAYNE obtains gainful employment, realizing therefrom any sum in excess of $125.00 per month, until she remarries, or until she becomes eligible for Social Security Benefits, whichever is sooner.'
The first attack made upon this order is that it does not specify that it is subject to modification by the court for changing circumstances as permitted by A.R.S. § 25--321. The appellee-wife concedes that this order is subject to modification under this statute and we believe this to be the law even without this concession. By expressing the conditions subsequent, which are to terminate the payment of alimony, there is no implication foreclosing modification. Spector v. Spector, 94 Ariz. 175, 181, 382 P.2d 659, 663 (1963).
The final attack upon this award is that, under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to award alimony. The appellant-husband marshals various 'facts' in imposing array in attempting to demonstrate that this award of alimony was unjustified. Among the assertions are that this was the fourth marriage for the wife, the marriage lasted only five years, there were no offspring of the marriage, the wife received the 'lion's share' of the community property, the husband was 64 years of age at the time of the divorce and the wife was 52, the wife brought no property into the marriage and had no earnings during the marriage, the husband was saddled with the payment of all community debts totaling over $5,000, and the husband was left only with a retirement income of $551.88, acquired largely through years of work prior to the marriage, with monthly expenses of.$541.12, not including the alimony ordered.
On appeal, we are required to look at the record favorably to the judgment rendered. State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc., 102 Ariz. 272, 428 P.2d 424 (1967). We allow a fact finder to discount testimony of an interested witness though unimpeached. Graham v. Vegetable Oil Products Company, 1 Ariz.App. 237, 241, 401 P.2d 242, 246 (1965), and cases cited therein. Under these tests, we do not find that there was a disproportionate division of the property acquired during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsay v. Lindsay
...upon the remarriage of the receiving spouse precluded treatment of the award as a lump sum, unmodifiable award. Hayne v. Hayne, 9 Ariz.App. 99, 449 P.2d 633 (1969); Porreca v. Porreca, 8 Ariz.App. 394, 446 P.2d 500 (1968).3 In 1976 A.R.S. § 25-319 was amended in minor detail not pertinent t......
-
Bryan v. Bryan
...The appellee denied this. The trial court was free to disregard the testimony of the appellant, an interested party. Hayne v. Hayne, 9 Ariz.App. 99, 449 P.2d 663 (1969). Assuming that the court disbelieved the appellant, the only other evidence of physical discipline came from the appellant......
-
Lee v. Lee
...the power to order a sale of community property was employed. See Hanner v. Hanner, 95 Ariz. 191, 388 P.2d 239 (1964); Hayne v. Hayne, 9 Ariz.App. 99, 449 P.2d 633 (1969). The only inherent limitation on the power of the trial court to apportion community property is that the division, in t......
-
Parkinson v. Farmers Ins. Co.
...he acted accidentally, but the trial court may disbelieve the testimony of an interested witness, even if unimpeached. Hayne v. Hayne, 9 Ariz.App. 99, 449 P.2d 633 (1969). See generally, F. James and G. Hazard, Civil Procedure, Sec. 7.7, at 247 (2nd ed. 1977); Annot., 62 A.L.R.2d 1191 (1958......