Hornbaker v. Hornbaker, 1
| Decision Date | 13 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
| Citation | 545 P.2d 425,25 Ariz.App. 577 |
| Parties | Darwin R. HORNBAKER, Appellant, v. Mary A. HORNBAKER, Appellee. 2830. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The appellant, Darwin R. Hornbaker, brings this appeal from a judgment in Superior Court denying his requested modification of a decree of divorce. Specifically, the Petition for Modification sought to terminate an alimony award of $200 per month payable to appellee, Mary A. Hornbaker.
Appellee was granted a decree of absolute divorce from appellant on November 29, 1967. The divorce decree ordered division of the property pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties in June, 1967. The decree further directed that appellant pay child support amounting to $65 per month for each of his three children; terminating when each became 21 years old. He was also ordered to pay alimony of $200 per month until and unless appellee remarried.
On February 15, 1973, appellant filed a petition seeking to modify the divorce decree by eliminating his obligation to pay alimony. Appellant alleged that there had been a substantial change in circumstances, in that appellee, who was not employed at the time of the divorce decree, was now employed full time as a school teacher and was fully able to provide for her own support, negating the need and justification for alimony.
In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed January 7, 1974, the Superior Court judge found that at the time of the divorce decree appellee had been working toward a Degree in Education and had been doing the required student teaching. In 1969, more than three years prior to the hearing on modification, appellee had become employed as a teacher and at the time of the hearing was earning a yearly salary of $9,250.
The court further found that at the time of the execution of the property settlement agreement and the entry of the divorce decree, both parties knew appellee was pursuing a degree in education and would probably become employed as a teacher upon completion of her degree. The court concluded that since these facts were known to the parties at the time of the decree and property settlement appellant failed to show substantially changed circumstances and therefore was not entitled to any modification of the divorce decree.
Upon a review of the evidence presented at the hearing on the modification petition, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court erred in its conclusion. Clearly, modification of an award of alimony may be allowed only after the party seeking modification demonstrates a substantial change in the financial circumstances of either the husband Or the wife. Nace v. Nace, 107 Ariz. 411, 489 P.2d 48 (1971). While the mere fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herndon v. Herndon
...in determining whether and to what extent the decree should be modified." Annot. 18 A.L.R.2d 74 (1951). See also Hornbaker v. Hornbaker, 25 Ariz.App. 577, 545 P.2d 425 (1976); Brady v. Brady, 94 Cal.App.2d 1, 210 P.2d 69 (1949); Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So.2d 484 (Fla.App.1976); Broday v. ......
-
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl
...previous proceeding"); see also In re Marriage of Rowe , 117 Ariz. 474, 475–76, 573 P.2d 874, 875–76 (1978) ; Hornbaker v. Hornbaker , 25 Ariz. App. 577, 578, 545 P.2d 425 (1976). While A.R.S. § 25–327 provides for modification of both spousal maintenance and child support, the Arizona Supr......
-
McClendon v. McClendon
...a changed circumstance must occur subsequent to the divorce." Scott , 121 Ariz. at 494, 591 P.2d 980 (citing Hornbaker v. Hornbaker , 25 Ariz.App. 577, 578, 545 P.2d 425 (1976) ).2 ¶ 10 Section 25–327(A)3 governs "the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance," except for separation a......
-
Chaney v. Chaney, 1
...denied because the husband knew of and contemplated the claimed changes at the time of the parties' agreement); Hornbaker v. Hornbaker, 25 Ariz.App. 577, 545 P.2d 425 (1976) (trial court's denial of husband's 1973 application for modification of a 1967 decree reversed because parties at tim......