Musgrave v. Musgrave
| Decision Date | 18 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--534,75--534 |
| Citation | 347 N.E.2d 831,38 Ill.App.3d 532 |
| Parties | Una F. MUSGRAVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold S. MUSGRAVE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John C. Robinson, Jr., Fairfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
Richard C. Cochran, Cochran & Harrison, Fairfield, for defendant-appellee.
Una Musgrave, plaintiff, was awarded a divorce from Arnold Musgrave, defendant, in the circuit court of Hamilton County, Illinois. She appeals from that portion of the decree dealing with the division of property between the parties.
Plaintiff was awarded a divorce from defendant on the grounds of physical cruelty after a marriage lasting 23 years. Custody of the four minor children of the parties, ranging in age from 17 to 10 years was awarded to plaintiff. The oldest child, a daughter, is 18 and continues to reside with plaintiff. The defendant was ordered to pay ten dollars a month in alimony and sixty dollars a week in child support and to pay the medical and dental bills of the children. In addition, he is to maintain health insurance for them.
Plaintiff attempted to establish at trial that there were 'special equities' entitling her to an interest in certain real property pursuant to section 17 of the Divorce Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 40, sec. 18). Defendant argues, and we agree, that the evidence did not show 'special equities' in the plaintiff. The considerations relevant to a claim of 'special equity' are set forth in Everett v. Everett, 25 Ill.2d 342, 185 N.E.2d 201. 'It is also well established that the rights or interests that one spouse has in the property of the other by virtue of the marriage relation alone will not justify a conveyance under section 17 (citations) but must be alleged and proved by the spouse seeking a part or all of the property in the name of the other that he or she has furnished valuable consideration such as money or services other than those normally performed in the marriage relation which has directly or indirectly been used to acquire or enhance the value of the property.' 25 Ill.2d at 347, 185 N.E.2d at 204.
The property in question, sixty-six acres in two tracts, was acquired by the defendant through inheritance from his parents, and title is now and has always been in his name. The contributions described by the plaintiff: the raising of chickens, daily trips to fill stock feeders, the hauling of grain and fertilizer, and keeping the farm accounts, fall into the category of 'services normally performed in the marriage relation' and cannot therefore serve to establish 'special equities' as required by the statute. (Norris v. Norris, 16 Ill.App.3d 879, 307 N.E.2d 181.) Plaintiff herself testified that 'what I did was just about what any other farm wife would do.'
Plaintiff relies on the case of Imbrie v. Imbrie, 94 Ill.App.2d 60, 236 N.E.2d 381, which is to the effect that a showing of hardship is sufficient to establish 'special equities' justifying an award of property to a spouse. While it is obvious from the evidence adduced at trial that the decision of the trial judge not to make an award of property to the plaintiff will result in hardship for her and the children, the Imbrie case is outside the mainstream of Illinois decisions on this question and we decline to follow it.
Plaintiff contends in the alternative that she should have been granted an interest in the real property as partial payment of alimony in installments or as alimony in gross in lieu of all other alimony pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 40, sec. 19. An award of periodic alimony is judicially preferred to alimony in gross because the court retains jurisdiction of the cause to make modifying orders as they become appropriate. (Schwarz v. Schwarz, 27 Ill.2d 140, 188 N.E.2d 673; Honey v. Honey, 120 Ill.App.2d 102, 256 N.E.2d 121.) An award of alimony in gross is proper where the circumstances indicate that periodic alimony would be feasible. Dmitroca v. Dmitroca, 79 Ill.App.2d 220, 223 N.E.2d 545...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patel v. Sines–Patel
...85 Absent exceptional circumstances, periodic maintenance is the judicially preferred form of maintenance. See Musgrave v. Musgrave, 38 Ill.App.3d 532, 534, 347 N.E.2d 831 (1976). Nonetheless, our supreme court has held that section 504(a) of the Act “authorize[s] the trial judge to award m......
-
Lamp v. Lamp
...of possession and the traditional preference of the law for periodic alimony rather than alimony in gross (Musgrave v. Musgrave, 38 Ill.App.3d 532, 347 N.E.2d 831 (5th Dist. 1976)), we conclude her award of possession of the home, as distinguished from the children's award of possession, to......
-
Lewanski v. Lewanski, 76-1345
...hardship can confer special equities upon a party. (See Davis v. Davis (1976), 41 Ill.App.3d 942, 354 N.E.2d 657; Musgrave v. Musgrave (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 532, 347 N.E.2d 831.) More importantly, however, the factual setting in Imbrie appears to be significantly different than the one in t......
-
Stotlar v. Stotlar
...by our Supreme Court in Everett v. Everett, 25 Ill.2d 342, 185 N.E.2d 201, which is applicable to this case. (e. g., Musgrave v. Musgrave, 38 Ill.App.3d 532, 347 N.E.2d 831.) That principle was stated in Everett as "It is * * * well established that the rights or interests that one spouse h......