Huber v. Huber
| Decision Date | 31 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 18735,18735 |
| Citation | 143 Colo. 255,353 P.2d 379 |
| Parties | Leona J. HUBER, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alban F. HUBER, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Mancini & Singer, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Meadoff & Meadoff, Denver, for defendant in error.
The question involved in the matter at bar is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff for an increase in support payments for the minor children of the parties, ages ten years and six years.
By a detailed written agreement, approved by the trial court in an interlocutory decree of divorce dated October 1, 1954, the husband and wife settled all alimony claims and property rights of the wife arising from their marital status, and agreed on the amount and terms of child support. The agreement, except as to continuing child support, has been fully executed. A final decree of divorce was granted plaintiff April 4, 1955, and the agreement between the husband and wife, including the confirming orders relating to child support in the interlocutory decree, were continued in force.
The original agreement, as approved by the trial court, provided that the defendant husband should pay to the plaintiff wife the sum of $100 per month for the support of the two children, pay the premiums on certain life insurance policies, and pay the children's medical expenses not fully covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield. In September, 1956, upon motion and hearing, the court ordered the payments increased to $110 per month. In February, 1958, the plaintiff filed her motion for an increase in child support, attorney's fees and costs. The motion was heard in April, 1958, and denied. The defendant husband had remarried prior to the filing of this motion.
The record shows that both families, at the time of the hearing, lived in the respective houses they occupied in September, 1956. That the plaintiff had a monthly net income of about $400; the defendant's net monthly income was approximately the same amount, after paying on a heavy indebtedness he had been compelled to incur while his income was greatly reduced. The plaintiff owned a 1955 automobile; the defendant a 1956 model. The children spent their summers away from their mother, except alternate weekends, with no expense to the plaintiff for food during such absences. In September, 1958, the younger child would enter school and plaintiff's baby sitting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Serfoss, In re, 81CA0211
...have been in the past or may be in the future. See, e.g., Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. 299, 358 P.2d 864 (1961); Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379 (1960). The court has no power or authority to cancel past due payments under a valid support order. Drazich v. Drazich, 153 Colo. ......
-
Lopez v. Lopez, 19978
...Wright, 122 Colo. 179, 220 P.2d 881. Modification in these respects ordinarily must find support in changed circumstances. Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379. And when modification is warranted it can only be made operable in futuro. Russ v. Russ, 128 Colo. 321, 262 P.2d No correct......
-
Franco v. Franco, 21173
...absence of an abuse of such discretion, it will not be disturbed on review. Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480, 382 P.2d 809; Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379; Zook v. Zook, 118 Colo. 299, 195 P.2d Another rule which is correlated to the foregoing is that in making its award of supp......
-
Beddoes v. Beddoes
...court in proceedings of this type will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379. In this case, however, the reduction in child support shows a misconception of the applicable law. The change in circumstances w......
-
ARTICLE 10
...on review. Brigham v. Brigham, 141 Colo. 41, 346 P.2d 302 (1959); Lanz v. Lanz, 143 Colo. 73, 351 P.2d 845 (1960); Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379 (1960); Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972); Ferguson v. Ferguson, Colo. App. , 507 P.2d 1110 (1973); Berge v. B......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...on review. Brigham v. Brigham, 141 Colo. 41, 346 P.2d 302 (1959); Lanz v. Lanz, 143 Colo. 73, 351 P.2d 845 (1960); Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379 (1960); Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972); Ferguson v. Ferguson, Colo. App. , 507 P.2d 1110 (1973); Berge v. B......
-
Chapter 23 - § 23.3 • MAINTENANCE
...the existing order unfair is within the discretion of the trial court. Weydeveld v. Weydeveld, 67 P.2d 72 (Colo. 1937); Huber v. Huber, 353 P.2d 379 (Colo. 1960); Garrow v. Garrow, 382 P.2d 809 (Colo. 1963). In making this determination, the trial court must base its findings and orders on ......