Kraus v. Kraus
| Citation | 159 Colo. 331,411 P.2d 240 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 20742,20742 |
| Parties | Daniel M. KRAUS, Plaintiff in Error, v. Bonnie M. KRAUS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Creamer & Creamer, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Alex Stephen Keller, Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error attacks that part of a divorce decree dealing with division of property. We will refer to him as Dr. Kraus and to defendant in error as Mrs. Kraus. Mrs. Kraus was awarded a 1960 Pontiac automobile, all household furniture, furnishings and equipment in her possession, and the sum of $14,000.00 in cash. Each of the parties is to retain all other assets in his or her possession. An order of the court to pay Mrs. Kraus $200.00 per month as alimony is not challenged.
Controversy in this proceeding centers around the property of the order of the trial court awarding Mrs. Kraus $14,000.00 in cash. To resolve the only dispute before us requires a recital of some of the evidence.
At the time of the divorce, the parties had been married approximately seven and one-half years. There are no children involved.
At the time of their marriage in 1955, Dr. Kraus possessed assets amounting to $38,066.96, While Mrs. Kraus had assets amounting to $36,223.80. At the time of the hearing on the property settlement, Dr. Kraus had increased his assets to $53,016.10, and Mrs. Kraus had accumulated additional wealth aggregating $54,011.91. The latter's assets were in liquid form, consisting of securities and bank accounts.
There appears of record a 'Letter of Understanding' whereby Mrs. Kraus' father evinces his intent to distribute $100,000.00 to her in the amount of $6,000.00 annually, each annual installment to count as a credit toward the total amount. At the time of the hearing, Mrs. Kraus had received installments amounting to $42,000.00 under the terms of this instruction. Mrs. Kraus also receives monthly dividends from her securities and savings accounts in the approximate amount of $143.00 and $97.00 as a Social Security disability benefit.
Dr. Kraus' net earnings from his practice of medicine have been $90,634.72, ranging from $9,735.76 in 1955 to $16,963.72 in 1962. It further appears that at one point during the marriage Dr. Kraus left the active practice of medicine and moved to Hawaii with Mrs. Kraus, admittedly because of her physical condition, although no medical testimony was presented which would indicate that such a move was essential.
A substantial part of the record is devoted to the health of Mrs. Kraus and some testimony was given concerning Mr. Kraus' physical condition. The trial court had an opportunity to see and hear the parties, and from the record determined Mrs. Kraus' ability to earn a livelihood is doubtful.
The legal principles underlying the disposition of this cause are fundamental and require no extensive exposition. Matters of property division and alimony rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review except for its abuse. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149; Harvey v. Harvey, 150 Colo. 449, 373 P.2d 304. Marital fault is not an issue in proceedings for property division. Whether the wife has contributed to or in some manner aided in the accumulation or preservation of the assets sought to be divided must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Hunt, In re
...as to justify her sharing in a division of such property. 152 Colo. 110, 113, 380 P.2d 673, 675 (1963); see also Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 333, 411 P.2d 240, 241-42 (1966). In accord with these authorities, I would conclude that conduct of a spouse that has a negative impact on the fin......
-
Hayutin v. C. I. R.
...fair, just and equitable proportions. The amount of property each party is to receive is discretionary with the court. Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966). In the exercise of its discretion the court may consider, inter alia, the value of the estate to be divided, the financi......
-
Imel v. United States
...requirement that the wife make special contributions to accumulation beyond her duties as a wife does not exist today, Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240. This passing comment by the Court concerning Kraus gives rise to much of the disagreement between the parties in our case. Ther......
-
Marriage of Graham, In re
...enhancing the husband's financial status or earning capacity have been considered in awarding alimony and maintenance. Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966); Shapiro v. Shapiro, 115 Colo. 505, 176 P.2d 363 (1946). The majority opinion emphasizes that in this case no maintenance......
-
ARTICLE 10
...such as to justify her sharing in a division of such property. Liggett v. Liggett, 152 Colo. 110, 380 P.2d 673 (1963); Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966); Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972). Although marital fault or misconduct may not be considered by t......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...such as to justify her sharing in a division of such property. Liggett v. Liggett, 152 Colo. 110, 380 P.2d 673 (1963); Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966); Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972). Although marital fault or misconduct may not be considered by t......