Moses v. Moses
| Decision Date | 27 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20956,20956 |
| Citation | 394 P.2d 601,155 Colo. 340 |
| Parties | Barbara Joyce MOSES, Plaintiff in Error, v. Robert Wayne MOSES, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Vincent Cristiano, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Smith, Pyle, Johnson & Makris, Denver, for defendant in error.
On August 29, 1960 Barbara Moses was granted a decree in divorce from her husband Dr. Robert Moses. Thereafter the parties entered into a written agreement concerning the custody of their four children, alimony, support and other related matters. On December 1, 1960 the trial court by appropriate order 'approved' this written agreement between the parties and 'incorporated' the same into a formal order of court, with a copy of the agreement being physically 'annexed' to said order.
Under the terms of this agreement Barbara received custody of the four children and was permitted to continue to live in the family home, title to which was to remain in Barbara and Dr. Moses in joint tenancy. In connection with the family home Barbara agreed to keep up the monthly payments thereon, which were then $126 per month, and also agreed 'to be responsible for paying all costs of maintenance * * * and other expenses of the upkeep and repair of the family home.' Dr. Moses in turn agreed, among other things, to pay Barbara the sum of $300 per month as support for the children and to pay as alimony the sum of $1150 per month to and through January 1962, at which time the alimony payments according to the agreement would thereafter be $350 per month.
This agreement also provided that the aforementioned alimony and support payments were 'subject to review by this Court on a change of circumstances of the parties' and in January 1962 Barbara filed a motion to increase alimony support payments. It is noted that under the terms of the agreement January 1962 was the last month Barbara was to receive as alimony the sum of $1150. This motion came on for hearing on February 21, 1962 at which time Barbara elected to waive her request for increased alimony, though she pursued her request that the support payments for the four children be increased. After hearing the trial court increased the support payment to $350 per month, the trial court stating that though the 'child support payments should rightly be increased to $350 per month', it would nonetheless not be 'kindly disposed to frequent motions and hearings on increasing the support.' Neither party sought review of this action taken by the trial court in connection with Barbara's motion to increase child support payments.
The publicly announced hope of the trial court that there would not be 'frequent' hearings seeking additional support or alimony payments did not materialize. Rather, in April 1963 Barbara with new counsel filed another motion seeking an increase in alimony and support, as well as an order that Dr. Moses be compelled to pay for a new roof and a paint job on the family home. The trial court devoted a full day to the consideration of Barbara's motion. All interested parties were permitted to testify at great length, to the end that the reporter's transcript of the testimony contains some 700 folios. At the conclusion of this hearing the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Perlmutter, In re, 87SC138
...its ruling will not be disturbed on review. Elmer v. Elmer, 163 Colo. 430, 432, 431 P.2d 470, 471 (1967); Moses v. Moses, 155 Colo. 340, 343, 394 P.2d 601, 602 (1964); see also Bradshaw, 626 P.2d at 754. On appeal, we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing ......
-
Elmer v. Elmer, 22187
...the sound discretion of the trial court. In the absence of an abuse of that discretion it will not be disturbed on review. Moses v. Moses, 155 Colo. 340, 394 P.2d 601; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104; Van Gordor v. Van Gordor, 54 Colo. 57, 129 P. 226, 44 L.R.A., N.S., From a ......
-
Franco v. Franco, 21173
...sufficient evidence (and inferences to be drawn therefrom) to support the conclusions of the trial court. This court, in Moses v. Moses, 155 Colo. 340, 394 P.2d 601, '* * * The trial court, not this court, heard the witnesses and also had the advantage of observing their demeanor on the wit......
-
DuBois v. DuBois, 8469
...Adler v. Adler, 80 Nev. 364, 394 P.2d 350 (1964); see: Porter v. Porter, 155 Mont. 451, 473 P.2d 538 (1970); moses v. Moses, 155 Colo. 340, 394 P.2d 601 (1964); cf. Nace v. Nace, 107 Ariz. 411, 489 P.2d 48 (1971); Gordon v. Gordon, 44 Wash.2d 222, 266 P.2d 786 Affirmed. ...