Loomis v. Loomis, 42.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 42.,42. |
| Citation | 273 Mich. 7,262 N.W. 331 |
| Parties | LOOMIS v. LOOMIS. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Marie Loomis against Charles B. Loomis. From the decree, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; Leonard D. Verdier, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Arthur F. Shaw, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Dunham & Sherk, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Marie Loomis, was granted a decree of divorce from the defendant, Charles Loomis, September 8, 1928. The decree provided that the defendant pay $20 per week for the support of the two minor children, two boys of the age of 11 and 12 at the time of the decree, and until the younger boy attained the age of 16 years. The divorce was not contested, and, when granted, defendant was employed and earning $52 per week. The trial court found that in January, 1929, the defendant lost his employment as a full-time linotype operator and became a ‘sub’ operator, with earnings of $26 per week; from October 1, 1930, defendant earned $23 per week until April, 1932, and thereafter about $21 per week until the youngest child became 16 years of age; from the time of entering the decree, defendant paid $1,935.13, whereas if the decree had been fully complied with defendant would have paid an additional amount in the sum of $2,959.87. In March, 1934, plaintiff filed a petition for attachment based upon the failure of defendantto make the payments ordered in the divorce decree; defendant then obtained counsel and filed a motion to amend the decree. This action resulted in the decree being amended November 3, 1934, wherein the trial judge decreed that defendant pay $45 attorney fees and the sum of $460 for maintenance of the minor children at the rate of $20 each pay day. In his opinion, the trial court stated that while the defendant was earning $52 per week he should pay $20 per week, with earnings of $26 per week his payment should have been reduced to $12 per week, and with earnings of $23 per week the payment should have been reduced to $10 per week. From this decree plaintiff appeals.
That the court may modify and revise provisions for alimony is unquestioned. Sherman v. Kent, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N. W. 795, also 3 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 12739, 12748. However, there must be a change in the condition of the parties arising since the decree to justify the modification of a decree for maintenance of children. Gould v. Gould, 226...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chipman v. Chipman, 7.
...to the allowance, as it may be changed from time to time, and reduced or enlarged in the discretion of the Court.’ See Loomis v. Loomis, 273 Mich. 7, 262 N.W. 331;Camp v. Camp, 158 Mich. 221, 122 N.W. 521. In the Loomis case a decree of divorce obtained by plaintiff Marie Loomis in Septembe......
-
Cogswell v. Cogswell et al.
...extends to accrued payments. (Italics supplied.) Nixon v. Wright, 146 Mich. 231, 109 N.W. 274, 10 Ann. Cas. 574; Loomis v. Loomis, 273 Mich. 7, 262 N.W. 331; Toth v. Toth, 242 Mich. 23, 217 N.W. 913, 56 A.L.R. 839; Wellman v. Wellman, 305 Mich. 365, 9 N.W. 2d 579. In Biewend v. Biewend, 17 ......
-
Wellman v. Wellman, 52.
...and revise the provisions of a decree as to alimony and also the amount of accrued and unpaid alimony. Our decision is Loomis v. Loomis, 273 Mich. 7, 262 N.W. 331, 332, is determinative of the question before us. In that case plaintiff Marie Loomis obtained a decree of divorce in September,......
-
Corley v. Corley
...time. Even accrued amounts of alimony are subject to modification. Nixon v. Wright, 146 Mich. 231, 109 N.W. 274 (1906), Loomis v. Loomis, 273 Mich. 7, 262 N.W. 331 (1935). Alimony and maintenance decrees do not resemble judgments at law in the pecuniary obligations they impose at the time o......