Morris v. Morris, 6 Div. 726.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 726. |
| Parties | MORRIS v. MORRIS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. M. Creel, Judge.
Petition of James Carter Garland Morris (respondent in suit for divorce and alimony by Gertrude Rosenstihl Morris) to modify a former decree for alimony, and counter petition by Gertrude Rosenstihl Morris (complainant in said suit) to increase allowance of alimony. From a decree denying both the original and counter petitions, the cross-petitioner (complainant) appeals.
Affirmed.
Smith Windham, Jackson & Rives, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Gordon Abele, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a petition filed by appellee, the former husband of appellant, to modify a decree of alimony incidental to a decree of divorce rendered October 24, 1935, in which appellee was ordered to pay appellant $25 a month as permanent alimony. This amount has been regularly paid.
At the time that decree was rendered, they had a son seventeen years old. So that he is now twenty-two years of age, and has completed his education and is self-supporting. She and her son have lived with her father, and they constituted the only members of the family. She has been, and still is, keeping house for him, and he provides her board and lodging, and she uses the $25 a month to supply other needs.
The basis of the claim of appellee for a reduction in the amount of alimony is the fact that the child has reached his majority, and does not have a further claim on that amount for support. As against that contention appellant claims, and so petitioned the court, that she is entitled to a larger allowance on account of her poor health and need of medical care and medicine, and because appellee is earning more than twice as much as he did when the decree was rendered. The court refused to enlarge the allowance at her instance or to decrease it at his instance. She prosecutes the appeal.
She is apparently well cared for in her father's home and doubtless well earns her board and lodging. The $25 a month barely is sufficient to supply her medicine and clothes; but she gets by with it as she has done for five years.
True he earns more now than he did when the divorce was granted, but he has married again, and while that is not justification for reducing the alimony allowance (17 Am.Jur. 476, section 611 note 3, also page 500, section 656; Myers v. Myers, 62...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Norton
...along with all the other evidence on the issue of changed conditions. Jones v. Jones, 251 Ala. 179, 181, 36 So.2d 310; Morris v. Morris, 240 Ala. 399, 199 So. 803. The same is true with respect to the remarriage of the husband. Jones v. Jones, supra; Morris v. Morris, supra; Aiken v. Aiken,......
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Div. 103
...246 Ala. 665, 22 So.2d 89; Keith v. Paden, 255 Ala. 294, 51 So.2d 9; Jones v. Jones, 251 Ala. 179, 36 So.2d 310; Morris v. Morris, 240 Ala. 399, 199 So. 803; 17 Am.Jur., Divorce and Separation, § 703, p. 534; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 322 b, p. 1245. However, although the cases hold that remarr......
-
Ramsey v. Kitchens
...32 So.2d 361 249 Ala. 609 RAMSEY v. KITCHENS. 6 Div. 541.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 30, 1947 ... v. Roubicek, 246 Ala. 442, 21 So.2d 244; Morris v ... Morris, 240 Ala. 399, 199 So. 803; 2 Schouler, ... ...
-
Colton v. Colton
...41 So.2d 398 252 Ala. 442 COLTON v. COLTON. 6" Div. 868.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 23, 1949 ... \xC2" ... Aiken v. Aiken, supra; Morris v. Morris, 240 Ala ... 399, 199 So. 803; Tidmore v ... ...