Menor v. Menor
Decision Date | 20 April 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 20766,20766 |
Citation | 391 P.2d 473,154 Colo. 475 |
Parties | James E. MENOR, Plaintiff in Error, v. Marjorie N. MENOR, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Leland S. Huttner, Lionel Dunievitz, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Sheldon & Nordmark, James T. Bayer, Donald B. Robertson, Denver, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, to whom we will refer as plaintiff or Marjorie, was granted a decree of divorce from plaintiff in error who will be referred to as the defendant or James. The decree was entered March 1, 1962. The trial court conducted extensive hearings relating to a division of property between the parties, permanent alimony, and custody and support money for their three minoe children.
March 5, 1963, 'Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order' consisting of twenty-two typewritten pages, were entered. The trial court dealt extensively with the financial affairs of the parties from the date of their marriage in August 1952 to the time of the hearing. Pertinent portions of the Findings of Fact are as follows:
'At the time of the separation, James was drawing a salary from Compass of $1,500 a month; and, at other times prior thereto, he had received a monthly salary of $1,750 a month.
The judgment and order of the trial court awarded to Marjorie:
1. The family home subject to a first trust deed of $16,000.00--(an equity of $20,000.00).
2. The furniture and furnishings in the family home valued at $10,000.00.
3. A 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon valued at $1,500.00.
4. Custody of the children.
5. James to pay $150.00 per month for the support of each child, or a total of $450.00 per month.
6. Alimony to Marjorie of $300.00 per month.
The court further ordered as follows:
'(7) That the Defendant James Menor keep in full force and effect the $150,000 insurance in favor of the Defendant Marjorie Menor, and that he or his Company pay all premiums thereon promptly; and, in the event of any delinquency or imminent delinquency as to payments on said policy, notice should be immediately given to the Plaintiff; that said policies are to remain in the Registry of the Denver District Court, and not be released except by Order of Court.
'(8) That in the event there is any change in circumstances of the Defendant, as to his ability to comply with any of these Orders, the Court hereby Orders that the Defendant provide the Plaintiff with a certified copy of each and every Federal Income Tax return by him, annually, after the date of this Order, and within five days after the filing of the original with the Director of the Internal Revenue Bureau.'
James argues in this court that the orders for alimony and support money are unjust, excessively burdensome, beyond the needs of the recipients, and amount to an abuse of discretion which this court should reverse or modify. We find no abuse of discretion in the instant case with respect to the awards of alimony and support money.
For a period of at least four years prior to the hearing, defendant's income had never been less than $15,000.00 per year. He is a 50% owner in a corporation which has an earning potential, and over which he, together with his associates, has full control concerning the compensation which he shall receive. According to the record, his automobile and living expenses are in a substantial degree paid by the corporation.
The judgment for cash payments of alimony and support money accordingly is affirmed.
We now direct our attention to that portion of the judgment relating to the stock owned by defendant in the corporation from which his income was derived. This corporate stock was subject to an agreement under which the owner of another substantial block of stock would have a prior right to purchase same in the event of a sale thereof by the defendant. The judgment of the trial court decreed that in the event there was a 'dissolution' of the corporation, or a sale of the stock owned by the defendant, 25% of the proceeds realized by defendant upon such dissolution, or sale, should be paid to the plaintiff,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Jones, In re
...market.... It cannot be assigned, sold, transferred, conveyed, or pledged." Id. at 432, 574 P.2d at 77. See also Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475, 482, 391 P.2d 473, 477 (1964) (husband's insurance policy with no cash surrender value was not an asset subject to division as In In re Marriage of......
-
Imel v. United States
...the trial court had clear jurisdiction over the subject matter. Stephenson v. Stephenson, 134 Colo. 96, 299 P.2d 1095; Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475, 391 P.2d 473. "The main thrust of the wife's argument, however, is that none of the equity acquired during the marriage should be awarded to ......
-
Moulton v. Moulton
...remuneration was not property as of the hearing date. He cites Crooker v. Crooker, 432 A.2d 1293 (Me.1981), and Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475, 391 P.2d 473 (1964), for the proposition that possible future events should not influence valuation of conjugal assets. The Crooker and Menor cases,......
-
Wallahan v. Wallahan
...to be paid as taxes and penalties if the funds were liquidated prior to 1994.5 Clark v. Clark, 460 P.2d 936 (Okl.1969); Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475, 391 P.2d 473 (1964). ...