Olmstead v. Olmstead

• Decision Date: 13 June 1912
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: OLMSTEAD v. OLMSTEAD.

83 A. 628

85 Conn. 478

OLMSTEAD v. OLMSTEAD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 13, 1912

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; William S. Case Judge.

Action for divorce, alimony, and the custody of a minor child, by Ida L. Olmstead against Fernando C. Olmstead. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

William H. Cable and Spotswood D. Bowers, both of Danbury for appellant.

Ives & Keating, of Danbury, for appellee.

RORABACK, J.

This was an action for divorce on the ground of adultery. The plaintiff, in addition to a divorce, claimed the custody of two minor children and alimony; one of the children having become of age before the trial in the court below. The defendant in his answer denied the adultery and as a special defense set up condonation. The court found the allegations of the complaint to be true, granted the divorce to the plaintiff on the ground of adultery, gave her the custody of the minor child, and found that $3,500 was a reasonable portion of the defendant's estate to assign to the plaintiff as alimony. The superior court also found that " at the time of the bringing of this action, the defendant was the owner and possessor of certain real and personal estate of the value of at least $11,500." The facts are not in dispute. The error claimed is that the record discloses that the amount of alimony is excessive and that the judgment in that respect should be set aside.

Section 4556 of the General Statutes, in effect when this action was commenced, provides that: " The superior court may assign to any woman so divorced part of the estate of her husband, not exceeding one-third, may change her name, and may order alimony pendente lite to be paid to the wife in any complaint or cross-bill for divorce pending in such court upon such terms and conditions as it shall deem advisable." In estimating the statutory allowance which may be made in actions like the present one, there is no inflexible standard. Within the limitation fixed by statute, the amount to be allowed is a matter within the discretion of the superior court. It should be regulated by a number of circumstances that may be considered. Among these is the amount of the estate of the husband, his income, his age, health, and earning capacity; the age, health, station, and separate estate of the wife. While the trial court in making a determination as to the allowance to the wife is bound...