Marriage of Sharp, In re
Decision Date | 28 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 3-281A60,3-281A60 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Elinor SHARP, Appellant-Petitioner, and Harry Sharp, Appellee-Respondent. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
The marriage of Elinor and Harry Sharp was dissolved by the trial court. Both appealed the judgment of the trial court. The issues they raised were decided by this Court in In re the Marriage of Elinor Sharp and Harry Sharp (1981), Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 690. We partially grant Harry's petition for rehearing.
On appeal, Elinor argued that the trial court had erred by relinquishing jurisdiction over the issue of spousal maintenance. She stated the trial court relinquished jurisdiction in its order of October 24, 1980. From this order, we quoted the trial court's third conclusion which stated that the trial court retained jurisdiction over the issue of spousal maintenance. We concluded that the trial court had not relinquished jurisdiction.
On rehearing, Harry notes that Elinor misled this Court because the trial court had actually relinquished jurisdiction when it ruled on the motion to correct errors rather than in its order of October 24, 1980. Harry argues that our opinion allows Elinor to raise the issue of spousal maintenance at a later time. He seems to argue that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction; therefore, Elinor may not bring the issue of spousal maintenance before the trial court. We agree.
In Newman v. Newman (1976), 171 Ind.App. 202, 355 N.E.2d 867, this Court approved of a trial court retaining continuing jurisdiction over the issue of possible maintenance to be paid by one spouse to another. The award of maintenance and the continuing retention of the issue of spousal maintenance are matters within the trial court's discretion. To constitute an abuse of discretion it must be shown that the trial court's decision was one which was "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Marshall v. Reeves (1974), 262 Ind. 107, 311 N.E.2d 807, 811.
We will not reweigh the evidence; we will consider only that evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which are most favorable to the appellee, Harry. Morgan v. Cooper (1981), Ind.App., 415 N.E.2d 729, 733. Even though the evidence might support a conclusion different from the one reached by the trial court, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Id.
Elinor attempted to demonstrate the trial court's abuse of discretion by the following argument:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. Jenkins
...the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances in evidence, or the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. In re Marriage of Sharp (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 417. In Barnett v. Barnett (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 1172, the First District held the trial court's award of attorney's fee......
-
Marriage of Dillman, In re
...facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." In re Marriage of Sharp (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 417, quoting Marshall v. Reeves (1974), 262 Ind. 107, 311 N.E.2d 807, 811. One way to show a trial court acted against th......
-
Danner v. Danner
...1986 decree did not order spousal maintenance; and therefore, the court could not mandate maintenance later. See In re Marriage of Sharp (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 417, 418 (when trial court did not retain continuing jurisdiction over the issue of possible future maintenance, right to mai......