Lockhart v. Lockhart

• Decision Date: 21 September 1927
• Docket Number: 20646.
• Citation: 145 Wash. 210,259 P. 385
• Parties: LOCKHART v. LOCKHART.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

259 P. 385

145 Wash. 210

LOCKHART v. LOCKHART.

No. 20646.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 21, 1927

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Stern, Judge.

Action for divorce by Mae Lockhart against W. T. Lockhart. From a decree of the superior court, modifying the decree as respects alimony, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Main J., dissenting.

James R. Chambers, of Seattle, for appellant.

R. J Meakim and D. V. Halverstadt, both of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent, Mae Lockhart, and the appellant, W. T. Lockhart were formerly husband and wife. They were divorced by a decree of the superior court of King county entered September 1, 1920. The appellant is a dentist by profession, and from a time some years prior to the entry of the decree of divorce had conducted, and now conducts, a dental office in the city of Seattle. At the time of the entry of the decree the parties agreed upon a property settlement. The decree is silent as to the terms of the settlement, further than it provides that the appellant shall pay to the respondent as alimony the sum of $200 per month for a period of nine months following the date of the decree and the sum of $150 per month thereafter until the further order of the court, and awards to the respondent the household furniture belonging to the parties. The evidence at the present hearing, however, discloses that the appellant was given the dental office furnishing and an automobile, which had an aggregate value of some $800. He had, furthermore, by his skill, energy, and attention to his profession, established a dental practice which netted approximately $5,000 per year, and the good will which usually follows such a practice also went to his share. The respondent was given the remainder of the property. There is a conflict in the testimony as to its value, but it at the lowest valuation greatly exceeded the value of the physical property taken by the appellant. The appellant paid alimony in accordance with the terms of the decree to October 1, 1924, the payments so made totaling $9,100.

In this proceeding, the appellant sought to be relieved from further payments on the alimony award. The cause was first heard by a court commissioner of King county. The evidence at the hearing developed that the appellant had turned over to the respondent certain endowment life insurance policies, aggregating $4,000, which had not matured, and on one of which the appellant had borrowed the sum of $350, that remained unpaid. The commissioner directed that the appellant pay to the respondent the sum borrowed to the insurance company; that he pay to her the accruing premiums on the life policies until they matured; that he pay alimony in accordance with the terms of the decree for the months of November and December, 1924; that, for the year 1925, he pay to the respondent $75 per month for the first six months and $50 per month for the remaining six months, the payments to cease at that time; and, that, if the respondent remarried, all alimony payments to cease on the happening of that event.

Neither party was satisfied with the order of the commissioner, and each sought a review thereof by the superior court. The superior court heard the cause on the evidence taken by the commissioner, and set the order of the commissioner aside. It directed that the appellant pay with the accrued interest the money borrowed on the life insurance policy and pay to the respondent the sum of $100 per month, beginning with the month of November, 1924, until the further order of the court; the payments to cease if the respondent remarried. The appeal is from the decree of the superior court.

While the evidence taken at the hearing...