Ramsey v. Ramsey
| Decision Date | 18 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 2737,2737 |
| Citation | 301 P.2d 377,76 Wyo. 188 |
| Parties | Alice M. RAMSEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roger W. RAMSEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Clarence G. Cypreansen and R. N. Ogden, Casper, for appellant.
Harry E. Leimback, Casper, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a divorce action. The action was instituted by Alice M. Ramsey, age about twenty-six years, against her husband Roger W. Ramsey, age about thirty-seven years. The defendant denied the plaintiff's grounds for a divorce and filed a cross petition. The case was tried and the court by its judgment of August 12, 1955, awarded a decree for divorce to the defendant Roger W. Ramsey. The parties have two children, a girl about eight years of age and a boy about four years of age. The custody of the children was awarded to the plaintiff, their mother, with right of visitation on the part of the father, and with the right of the father to have the custody of the children during the summer months. The court also awarded alimony for the support of the children in the sum of $75 a month, except when the children are in defendant's custody. The defendant was given all of the property of the parties, but plaintiff was awarded a lump sum of $2,000, which amount should be a lien on the property of the defendant until paid, and directed the defendant to pay that amount on or before September 25, 1955, or show cause why the payment had not been made.
The defendant has appealed from the judgment of the court. He complains that the custody of the children was awarded the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was awarded the sum of $2,000 above mentioned.
The welfare of the children is the primary consideration for the court in awarding their custody. Curran v. Curran, 51 Wyo. 217, 65 P.2d 243. Here one of the children, a girl is eight years of age, and the boy is four years of age. If the mother can take care of such children, and is properly qualified in the judgment of the court to do so, it cannot be error to award the custody to her. See Curran v. Curran, supra; Burt v. Burt, 48 Wyo. 19, 41 P.2d 524. While the defendant claims the mother is not a proper party to have the custody, there is evidence in the record that she is. We see no reason to disturb the finding of the court in this connection.
The property of the parties consists of a home, known as lot 3 of Southridge Addition to the city of Casper, some household goods, and a 1952 Roadmaster Buick automobile. There is some testimony that the home is worth about $12,000. There is a mortgage against it which originally was $9,800, but has been reduced by payments to about the sum of $7,100. It seems the defendant is a veteran and the loan against the home is perhaps a 'G.I.' loan, with periodic payments to be made until paid. The cost of the household goods was about $3,000. Defendant testified the value as secondhand goods would be about $700. The value of the automobile was not shown, but was perhaps $1,200 to $1,500. The defendant earns from $350 to $375 per month (take home pay) and plaintiff, since the separation of the parties, has been working as a telephone operator earning about $40 per week.
As already stated the property of the parties was awarded to the defendant with a lien in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,000. It is argued by counsel for the defendant that the court should not have given the plaintiff this amount of money, particularly in view of the fact that the defendant was awarded the divorce. But that is not necessarily conclusive. The court may in its discretion award the wife alimony, if the circumstances warrant it. 17 Am.Jur. 478. In this case there is considerable difference in the earning capacity of the parties. We have held in numerous cases ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muller v. Muller
...requirement to pay criteria has been regularly enforced. See, e.g., Hendrickson, 583 P.2d 1265; Young, 472 P.2d 784; Ramsey v. Ramsey, 76 Wyo. 188, 301 P.2d 377 (1956); and Lonabaugh, 22 P.2d 199. In Ramsey, the property settlement (alimony) lump sum award was modified on appeal into period......
-
Broadhead v. Broadhead
...child support or alimony payments may be lost as a practical expectability. The blood-and-turnip homily is axiomatic. Ramsey v. Ramsey, 76 Wyo. 188, 301 P.2d 377 (1956). Reasoned discretion and rational application remain the responsibility of the trial jurist. Victor v. Victor, 142 Vt. 126......
-
Goss v. Goss, 88-267
...1, 7 P.2d 223 (1932); Burt v. Burt, 48 Wyo. 19, 41 P.2d 524 (1935); Curran v. Curran, 51 Wyo. 217, 65 P.2d 243 (1937); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 76 Wyo. 188, 301 P.2d 377 (1956); Butcher v. Butcher, 363 P.2d 923 (Wyo.1961); Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721 (Wyo.1963) (visitation question); Taylor v. ......
-
Fanning v. Fanning
...Thereafter, both a maternal preference and a balancing test developed. Leitner v. Lonabaugh, Wyo., 402 P.2d 713 (1965); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 76 Wyo. 188, 301 P.2d 377 (1956). The law has now returned again to best interest as a criterion as defined in the present statute. It may be that the ap......