Mitchell v. Mitchell, 13565
| Decision Date | 07 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 13565,13565 |
| Citation | 527 P.2d 1359 |
| Parties | Delores Blood MITCHELL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Keith MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Jackson Howard of Howard, Lewis & Petersen, Provo, for defendant and appellant.
Kay M. Lewis of Jensen & Lewis, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Plaintiff filed a petition to modify the alimony and child support payments awarded to her in a decree of divorce entered in February, 1970. The original decree awarded plaintiff $1 per year alimony and $90 per month for each of five minor children. Upon hearing of the petition, the trial court increased plaintiff's alimony to $100 per month and child support to $150 per child for the four minor children residing with her.
The trial court found that since the time of entry of the original decree, defendant's earnings had increased from a base salary of $13,196 per year plus bonus to a base salary of $19,355 per year; that the cost of living had increased considerably; and that plaintiff's living expenses for herself and minor children had increased to an amount in excess of $800 per month. The trial court concluded that there had been a substantial change of circumstances with a substantial increase in the cost of living, which justified an increment in the award.
Defendant appeals from the order decreeing the aforementioned modification. He contends that the amount of alimony to which plaintiff is entitled should be based upon her station in life at the time the decree of divorce was entered and should not be measured by defendant's present wealth and earning capacity. Defendant claims that the sole ground for modification of alimony was the increase in his income, and such a factor is relevant only insofar as ability to pay is concerned; and that there must be a change of circumstances to justify an increase in alimony. Defendant further urges that there must be a material change of circumstances to modify an award of child support, and such burden was not sustained by plaintiff. Defendant finally contends that in the original decree plaintiff was awarded the family home in lieu of substantial alimony payments, and such a property settement should be deemed res judicate and held to preclude any subsequent modification of alimony.
Section 30--3--5, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1969, provides:
When a decree of divorce is made, the court may make such orders in relation to the children, property and parties, and the maintenance of the parties and children, as may be equitable. The court shall have continuing jurisdiction to make such subsequent changes or new orders with respect to the support and maintenance of the parties, the custody of the children and their support and maintenance, or the distribution of the property as shall be reasonable and necessary.
In accordance with this statute, this court has held that a proceeding to modify a divorce decree is equitable and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v. Savage
...parties, and its actions are entitled to a presumption of validity. See, e.g., Cox v. Cox, Utah, 532 P.2d 994 (1975); Mitchell v. Mitchell, Utah, 527 P.2d 1359 (1974). In Turner v. Turner, Utah, 649 P.2d 6 (1982), we stated Although this Court may weigh the evidence and substitute its judgm......
-
Christiansen v. Christiansen, 18132
...fashioning appropriate relief. Fletcher v. Fletcher, Utah, 615 P.2d 1218 (1980); Cox v. Cox, Utah, 532 P.2d 994 (1975); Mitchell v. Mitchell, Utah, 527 P.2d 1359 (1974); Harding v. Harding, 26 Utah 2d 277, 488 P.2d 308 (1971). This deference applies as much to findings in a modification pro......
-
Kiesel v. Kiesel, 16806
...Utah, 599 P.2d 510 (1979); Pope v. Pope, Utah, 589 P.2d 752 (1978); English v. English, Utah, 565 P.2d 409 (1977).4 Mitchell v. Mitchell, Utah, 527 P.2d 1359 (1974); Gale v. Gale, 123 Utah 277, 258 P.2d 986 (1953); Gardner v. Gardner, 111 Utah 286, 177 P.2d 743 (1947).5 Harrison v. Harrison......
-
Powell v. Bastian
...et al., 102 Utah 523, 129 P.2d 981 (1942); Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Neilson, 26 Utah 2d 383, 385, 490 P.2d 328 (1971).1 Mitchell v. Mitchell, 527 P.2d 1359 (Utah 1974).2 27 Utah 2d 411, 414--415, 497 P.2d 23 (1972).3 See Merryweather v. Pendleton, 91 Ariz. 334, 372 P.2d 335 (1962); Weston......