Huff v. Huff, 10886.
| Citation | 234 P. 167,77 Colo. 15 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 10886. |
| Parties | HUFF v. HUFF. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Error to District Court, El Paso County; Wilbur M. Alter, Judge.
Suit by Louise Huff against Chester A Huff. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant filed petition to modify as to alimony. Petition dismissed, and defendant brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Orr & Little and Henry T. McGarry, all of Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Samuel H. Kinsley and Leon H. Snyder, both of Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.
On November 29, 1921, a final decree of divorce was entered in a cause wherein the plaintiff, a wife, sued for divorce and alimony. The decree embodied an award of permanent alimony to plaintiff in the sum of $7,400, payable in installments of $100 at certain times and other stated amounts at [234 P. 168.] other times thereafter. About two years after the entry of the decree, and on November 27, 1923, the defendant filed a petition in the same case to modify the decree in so far as it concerns installments of permanent alimony to accrue in the future. The petition shows payments of the installments theretofore accrued, amounting to $2,900, and that the future installments under the decree would amount to $4,500. the petition alleged changed circumstances of defendant.
The plaintiff demurred to this petition upon the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to modify the decree. The demurrer was sustained, and the petition dismissed. The defendant brings the cause here for review. The sole question to be determined arises from the sustaining of the demurrer and is: Did the court have jurisdiction to modify the decree as to permanent alimony at a term subsequent to that at which the decree was entered, and before the completion of the payments therein provided, without regard to section 81 of the Code of 1921?
Section 5599, C. L. 1921, provides, among other things, as follows:
'* * * And when a divorce has been granted the court may make such order and decree providing for the payment of alimony and maintenance of the wife and minor children or either of them as may be reasonable and just. * * *'
The divorce statute contains no other provision pertinent to the question now before us. The clause above quoted is practically identical with that found in the divorce statute existing at the time of the decision of this court in Stevens v. Stevens, 31 Colo. 188, 72 P. 1061. There the question decided was the question presented now, and this court said:
'By virtue of the general equity powers of a court granting a divorce, as well as by virtue of the provision of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Hall
......Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991;. Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143; Huff. v. Huff, 77 Colo. 15, 234 P. 167; Low v. Low, . 79 Colo. 408, 246 P. 266; Weydeveld v. ......
-
Weston v. Weston
...and what was said in the opinions must, of course, be interpreted with regard to the facts then before the court. In Huff v. Huff, 77 Colo. at page 17, 234 P. 168, court says: '* * * Such court [district] has the authority to modify the decree relative to alimony payable in the future, * * ......
-
Harris v. Harris, 15246.
...of section 8, chapter 56, vol. 2, '35 C.S.A. IN 1917, L. '17, p. 182, § 7, C.L. '21, § 5599. Subsequently we held in Huff v. Huff, 77 Colo. 15, 234 P. 167, although this section in the 1917 act relating to alimony did not specifically authorize it, the courts still had the power to modify a......
-
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 14216.
...for alimony as changed conditions of the parties may render necessary and proper. Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143; Huff v. Huff, 77 Colo. 15, 234 P. 167. regarding alimony may be modified by this court. Miller v. Miller, 79 Colo. 609, 247 P. 567. It follows that, having the right......