Oliver v. Oliver
| Decision Date | 29 May 1953 |
| Citation | 258 S.W.2d 703 |
| Parties | OLIVER v. OLIVER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Elwood Rosenbaum, Lexington, for appellant.
George R. Smith, Lexington, for appellee.
WADDILL, Commissioner.
Mrs. Mary Louise Oliver appeals from an order awarding her alimony of $200 a month and allowing her attorney a fee of $400. She complains that the amount of the award is wholly inadequate for her needs. She maintains that the evidence entitles her to a much larger sum for her support and to a substantial increase in the fee allowed her attorney.
The appellant married Leonard H. Oliver on February 14, 1952. She was then 37 years old and Mr. Oliver was 52. Mrs. Oliver had been previously married and divorced and has the custody of her 11 year old child by her former marriage.
Mr. Oliver had been married twice prior to his marriage to appellant. His first wife died and his second wife obtained a divorce. Mr. Oliver has the custody of his two children which were born to his first wife.
It is patent from the evidence that appellant's marriage to Mr. Oliver was a mistake. Shortly after they returned from their honeymoon they commenced quarreling and neither of them made any real effort to reconcile their differences.
On March 3, 1952, Mr. Oliver took appellant to the home of her aged parents and left her without any provision for her support. She was then pregnant. On March 24, 1952, she filed this action under KRS 403.050.
Following a hearing of the case the Chancellor granted Mrs. Oliver a divorce from 'bed and board' and awarded her alimony. We quote the pertinent part of the judgment appealed from:
'It is further ordered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant, Leonard Hudson Oliver, pay the plaintiff through the Fayette County Juvenile Court the sum of Two Hundred ($200.00) per month, the first of such payments under this judgment will be due on the 29th day of July, 1952, and a like payment will be due on the 29th day of each and every month thereafter during plaintiff's pregnancy and until she recovers from it.
'The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff's hospital, physicians and drug bills during her pregnancy and such bills resulting therefrom.
'The defendant is further ordered to pay the costs of this action including the sum of $400.00 to Elwood Rosenbaum, plaintiff's attorney of record herein.'
In fixing the amount of alimony the court must consider many factors, which include the size of the husband's estate and his earning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Norton
...the necessities measured by ability of the wife to acquire daily work but the Court must, as was properly stated in Oliver v. Oliver, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 703, 704, 'consider * * * the wife's estate, her necessities, measured by the social position in which her marriage placed her." 89 Ariz. at ......
-
Strater v. Strater
...earning capacity; the wife's estate and her necessities measured by the social position in which her marriage has placed her. Oliver v. Oliver, 258 S.W.2d 703 (Ky.). The amount of alimony is based on the husband's income and the needs of the wife from the standpoint of the manner in which t......
-
Smith v. Smith
...the necessities measured by ability of the wife to acquire daily work but the Court must, as was properly stated in Oliver v. Oliver, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 703, 704, 'consider * * * the wife's estate, her necessities, measured by the social position in which her marriage placed As this Court stat......