Lines v. Lines
| Decision Date | 27 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | 8589. |
| Parties | LINES v. LINES. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Louis H. Smith, of Sioux Falls, for appellant.
Caldwell & Burns, of Sioux Falls, for respondent.
On the 19th day of January, 1939, a decree was entered in the circuit court in Minnehaha County granting to Gladys A. Lines, as plaintiff, an absolute divorce from defendant, Grant N Lines. A property settlement agreement was entered into by plaintiff and defendant before the divorce was granted and when the decree was entered the terms of the property settlement were confirmed in the decree. The decree also awarded plaintiff the custody of their fourteen year old daughter.
At the time of granting the decree the defendant had steady employment for which he was receiving $225 per month, and it was agreed by said parties, and made a part of the decree, that so long as his salary remained at $225 per month, he would pay the respondent $110 per month for her maintenance and the maintenance and education of their said daughter. In anticipation of a reduction in defendant's salary to $200 per month, it was agreed that in case of such reduction plaintiff's allowance should be reduced to $97.50 per month. Shortly thereafter, defendant's salary was reduced to $200 per month and on the 3rd day of October, 1939, an order was issued by the court reducing plaintiff's allowance to $97.50.
On the 21st day of July, 1940, defendant remarried and assumed the burden of supporting his second wife in addition to what he was required to contribute to the support of plaintiff and the said daughter. Defendant's salary was not sufficient to support both families and the result was that he ran behind in his payments to plaintiff and he made an application to the court to change the amount of the monthly payment made to the plaintiff. Pursuant to this application the court entered an order, on August 12, 1942, in which the sum allowed plaintiff was reduced from $97.50 to $80 per month to be paid in semi-monthly payments of $40 each; and the further sum of $80 in two equal instalments that were due about July 21 1942, and August 6, 1942.
From this order defendant appeals to this court. But one alleged error is assigned by the appellant, which reads as follows "The Court erred in making and entering its order of August 12, 1942, for the reason that it does not grant to defendant the relief to which he is entitled under the laws of the State of South Dakota and is against law and equity; the defendant made all the payments required by the Decree entered herein until the child of the parties became of age on July 9, 1942.
That said order is against the evidence because said child now is of age and has an income of her own. That the plaintiff is employed and has an income of $70.00 per month and that to require defendant to pay to plaintiff Eighty Dollars per month will give her a greater net income than that of defendant. That the income of defendant is not sufficient upon which he can live and make such payments."
It is within the jurisdiction of the court to grant the relief asked for by defendant, but it is contended by respondent that to entitle appellant to a change in the amount of the alimony to be paid by appellant he must show that the court abused its discretion in fixing the amount allowed by the order appealed from; or that there has been such a change in the circumstances of one or both of the parties as to constitute a different state of facts than those already adjudicated upon. This question was considered by this court in Vert v. Vert, 3 S.D. 619, 54 N.W. 655, and the rule then laid down has been followed by this court from that time down to date. Greenleaf v. Greenleaf, 6 S.D. 348, 61 N.W. 42; Shoop v. Shoop, 58 S.D. 593, 237 N.W. 904; Wenzel v. Wenzel, 67 S.D. 537, 295 N.W. 493.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial