Marshall v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 21 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | Nos. C--711,C--712,s. C--711 |
| Citation | 551 P.2d 709,191 Colo. 165 |
| Parties | Dorothy A. MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. Hollis H. MARSHALL, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Tinsley, Frantz, Fleming & Davidson, P.C., Albert T. Frantz, Lakewood, for petitioner.
David C. Vigil, Denver, for respondent.
This court granted certiorari on two petitions, one by each of the parties. The separate petitions and cases have now been consolidated under the above caption. Certiorari was granted on the two petitions to review the opinion of the court of appeals in Marshall v. Marshall, 35 Colo.App. 442, 536 P.2d 845 (1975).
This is a domestic relations case in which the former husband, the respondent here, was found by the trial court to be in contempt of court for failure to pay to his former wife, the petitioner here, certain sums of money ordered to be paid in February 1972 at the conclusion of the divorce case. The former husband appealed to the court of appeals which reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the contempt proceedings in the trial court.
Although other issues were considered in the court of appeals' opinion, our only concern in granting certiorari here was to review that part of the court of appeals' judgment which ordered the dismissal of the contempt proceedings in the trial court. We agree that reversal of the trial court's judgment was proper but we now reverse the court of appeals' direction to dismiss the contempt proceedings in the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm in part the judgment of the court of appeals and reverse it in part.
The court of appeals properly ruled that the contempt of court judgment was not supported by appropriate findings of the trial court. This case should be remanded to the trial court with an order to review and weigh the evidence presented at the trial court hearing and to either dismiss the contempt proceedings or to enter a judgment supported by appropriate findings.
The parties were divorced on February 2, 1972. At that time, five of the seven children born of the marriage were still minors and among other expenses ordered to be paid by the former husband was the cost of tuition, room and board, and reasonable expense of the children in college. No specific amounts were set at that time for such expenses. At a hearing in the trial court on February 22, 1974, evidence was presented concerning certain college expenses which had not been paid by the former husband, and an order was entered directing him to pay these amounts. The court also ordered that henceforth the former husband pay as a reasonable expense $35 per month per child for the two children then in college.
On March 29, 1974, a citation for contempt of court was issued to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nab v. Nab
...People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970 (Colo.1985); Wright v. District Court, 192 Colo. 553, 561 P.2d 15 (1977); Marshall v. Marshall, 191 Colo. 165, 551 P.2d 709 (1976); McVay v. Johnson, 727 P.2d 416 (Colo.App.1986). Even assuming such a rule need be announced in Idaho, our Supreme Court has hel......
-
People v. Razatos
...contemner has the present ability to comply. Wright v. District Court, 192 Colo. at 555, 561 P.2d at 17; Marshall v. Marshall, 191 Colo. 165, 167, 551 P.2d 709, 710 (1976); Murley v. Murley, 124 Colo. 581, 584, 239 P.2d 706, 708 (1951). In order to support a contempt order imposed to punish......
-
Owens v. Dominguez (In re Estate of Owens)
...make a finding both of the facts constituting contempt and of the present duty and ability to perform." Marshall v. Marshall , 191 Colo. 165, 167, 551 P.2d 709, 710 (1976) (citing People in Interest of Murley , 124 Colo. 581, 239 P.2d 706 (1951) ). Thus, before imposing remedial contempt, t......
-
Cavanaugh v. State, Dept. of Social Services, 80SA304
...which are the subject of the contempt. C.R.C.P. 107(d); Wright v. District Court, 192 Colo. 553, 561 P.2d 15 (1977); Marshall v. Marshall, 191 Colo. 165, 551 P.2d 709 (1976). If the contempt consists of the failure to perform an act in the power of the person to perform, the court may impri......
-
Advice to Attorneys on Contempt
...1980); Marriage ofHartt, 603 P.2d 970 (Colo. 1979); Marshall v. Marshall, 536 P.2d 845 (Colo.1975), aff'd in part, rev'd in part 551 P.2d 709 (Colo. 1976). See also People ex rel. PUC v. Entrup, 143 P.3d 120 (Colo.App. 2006) (judge's contempt sanction was reversed in part because of a lack ......