Lisiten v. Lisiten, 71--024

• Decision Date: 11 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71--024,71--024
• Citation: 492 P.2d 895,30 Colo.App. 375
• Parties: Mel LISITEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. K. Barbara LISITEN, Defendant-Appellant. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 895

492 P.2d 895

30 Colo.App. 375

Mel LISITEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. K. Barbara LISITEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71--024.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Jan. 11, 1972.

Allen W. Broadstreet, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

John Iacoponelli, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

ENOCH, Judge.

This appeal concerns the permanent orders entered subsequent to a decree of divorce. The defendant-appellant will be referred to as the wife and plaintiff-appellee as the husband.

The wife alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the time for the hearing on the property division and in awarding only $200 for the wife's attorney's fees. We agree.

At the beginning of the scheduled hearing on the property division, alimony and attorney's fees, the court advised the parties that each side would be allowed one-half hour for the presentation of evidence and stated that, 'When you get into the second half hour the Court will make its ruling, regardless of the status of the testimony in evidence.' The court did in fact interrupt the testimony of the wife at the end of the hour with the declaration, '. . . and that concluded the testimony so far as this court is concerned. The time has expired for testimony.' The wife had no opportunity to complete her evidence, nor was the husband allowed any time for rebuttal. The parties and their attorneys were constantly pushed through the hearing with repeated reminders of their limited time and the wife's attorney was further advised that he could cross-examine the husband's witness, but that any time taken for cross-examination would be charged against the wife's 30 minutes allocated for the presentation of her case.

We are aware of the crowded docket in the domestic relations division of the court and the obligation of the trial court to move matters before it as rapidly as possible. Nevertheless, litigants are entitled to have sufficient time to make an orderly presentation of their case. Under the circumstances of this case, the parties were denied a full and fair hearing and the time limitation was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Anderson v. Anderson, 167 Colo. 88, 445 P.2d 397.

In regard to the award of attorney's fees, the Supreme Court has stated in Bieler v. Bieler, 130 Colo. 17, 272 P.2d 636, that 'it is the purpose of . . . attorney fees to place the wife on an equal footing with her husband for . . . her maintenance of the proceeding.' The record shows...