Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 17655
| Decision Date | 12 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17655,17655 |
| Citation | 132 Colo. 300,287 P.2d 662 |
| Parties | Louise M. NUNEMACHER, Plaintiff in Error, v. Robert N. NUNEMACHER, Jr., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Kenneth L. Smith, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Yegge, Bates, Hall & Shulenburg, Ronald V. Yegge, Denver, for defendant in error.
Before ALTER, C. J., and MOORE, HOLLAND, CLARK, LINDSLEY, BRADFIELD and KNAUSS, JJ.
We will refer to plaintiff in error as 'plaintiff' and defendant in error as 'defendant', such being their respective positions in the trial court. Plaintiff, the wife, obtained a non-contested decree in divorce. In her complaint plaintiff prayed for temporary and permanent alimony; division of property held by the parties; counsel fees, and costs. About a month after the interlocutory decree was entered the trial court entered an order directing defendant to pay plaintiff, as temporary alimony, the sum of $225 per month. The final decree was entered on September 30, 1954. In December, 1954 a hearing was had on the matter of permanent alimony, division of property, etc., and on January 20, 1955 the trial court made its order and decree by which plaintiff was awarded the following assets and the value of each item is admitted:
The residence she occupies and its furnishings, $23,000; an Oldsmobile automobile, $900; one half of joint checking account, $1,048.65; a Government bond, $450; an undivided half interest in Loper Land in Kansas, $3,000; 20 shares of Ashland Oil stock, $500; and other stocks valued at $1,908.50. There is some doubt as to whether the $23,000 valuation of the home property includes the value of the household goods and furniture awarded to plaintiff. The residence awarded to plaintiff consists of five rooms upstairs and a basement consisting of two bedrooms, living room and kitchen. Defendant in error raises no question about the propriety of an additional order by which plaintiff was made beneficiary under a $7,000 insurance policy on the life of the husband, who was ordered to pay the premiums thereon as same accrued. As to the validity of this portion of the order we express no opinion.
In this decree and order the trial court stated that he was of the opinion The trial court awarded plaintiff the sum of $100 per month as permanent alimony. This order, of course, is subject to review by the trial court in the event a changed condition arises.
By the order dividing the property, defendant was permitted to retain cash and bank accounts of $2,105.50; a Ford automobile valued at $1,000; one-half interest in Loper Land in Kansas, $3,000; stocks valued at $16,829.50; the Spring Creek Ranch in Kansas, inherited by defendant from his uncle and claimed to be worth $41,000. The record discloses that the two ranch properties in Kansas are in the 'Dust Bowl'.
Plaintiff brings the cause here on writ of error seeking a review of the awards made by the trial court with reference to the division of property and award of permanent alimony. It is contended that the trial court erred in 'allowing a small portion of the assets of the parties acquired during their married life to plaintiff,' and that the trial court erred 'in not allowing more than $100.00 per month to the plaintiff as permanent alimony.'
Many factors enter into the determination of what division of property shall be made in the event of a divorce. Among these are the value of the estate to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schrader v. Schrader
...Court will upset the exercise thereof only when it has been abused. Green v. Green, 139 Colo. 551, 342 P.2d 659; Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662, 663. The abuse must be manifest and the court's decree operate in such manner as to be burdensome and oppressive before thi......
-
Carlson v. Carlson
...financial condition, and all other relevant circumstances. Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966); Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662 (1955); Clark, Domestic Relations, 'Division of Property on Divorce,' § 14.8, at 449 (1968). No one questions that it is diffi......
-
Harrod v. Harrod
...of marital property are within the discretion of the trial court. Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006; Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662. The findings of fact made by the trial court being supported by substantial evidence, the determination that the husband......
-
Flor v. Flor, 19689
...received by her there would have been little or nothing to quarrel about upon dissolution of the marriage. From Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662, 663, 664, we quote the 'Matters of alimony and property settlement between husband and wife are within the sound discretion ......
-
ARTICLE 10
...acquired; the age and status of the parties, and all pertinent facts and circumstances bearing on the question. Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662 (1955); Brigham v. Brigham, 141 Colo. 41, 346 P.2d 302 (1959); Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966); Larrabee v......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...acquired; the age and status of the parties, and all pertinent facts and circumstances bearing on the question. Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662 (1955); Brigham v. Brigham, 141 Colo. 41, 346 P.2d 302 (1959); Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240 (1966); Larrabee v......