Rapson v. Rapson
| Decision Date | 04 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 21742,21742 |
| Parties | Howard Maynard RAPSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carol Ann RAPSON, by and through her Next Friend, Charles Weiss, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
R. George Silvola, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Trott, Kunstle, O'Leary & Ratner, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.
Carol Ann Rapson, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a complaint in annulment against Howard Maynard Rapson, who will be referred to hereinafter as the defendant. In her complaint the plaintiff sought a decree in annulment on the particular ground set forth in C.R.S. 1963, 46--3--1(b), and in connection therewith she also asked for the care and custody of a minor child of the parties. Additionally, she prayed for an order that the defendant be directed to pay support moneys to her for the use and benefit of their child.
In his answer the defendant agreed that the marriage should be annuled, but denied that he should be subjected to any order to pay plaintiff support money for the child in question. In response to plaintiff's request for child support, the defendant specifically denied that he was the father of the child.
Trial of this matter was to the court, and culminated in a decree in annulment and an order that defendant pay the plaintiff child support money in the sum of $75 per month. By writ of error the defendant seeks reversal of the child support order, contending (1) the trial court under the circumstances should not have entered Any order calling for child support and (2) that the sum of $75 per month was excessive. A very brief recital of the evidence adduced upon trial will hopefully place this controversy in focus.
It was undisputed that during September, October and November, 1963 plaintiff and the defendant engaged in numerous acts of sexual intercourse. Shortly thereafter plaintiff advised the defendant that she was pregnant, whereupon the defendant suggested marriage. The two then immediately proceeded to advise plaintiff's parents of her pregnancy and of their mutual desire to marry. Defendant at the time was a college student, and the plaintiff was attending high school.
Plaintiff and defendant were married, whereupon the defendant dropped out of college and obtained employment as a painter. For some eight months plaintiff and defendant lived together as husband and wife, when the parties separated and this separation led to the present complaint in annulment.
About six months after the date of marriage a child was born and it is this child which is the object of the aforementioned support order. Upon trial the defendant denied that he was the father of the child and though he admitted numerous acts of sexual intercourse with the plaintiff, his testimony was that he did not however have sexual intercourse with her for a period of about two to three weeks during which time the child was believed to have been conceived. The plaintiff's testimony was that she and the defendant did have sexual intercourse during the period of time when conception occurred, and that the defendant was the Only person with whom she had ever experienced sexual relations.
Also, the defendant called as his witness a doctor who testified that just the day before the trial he had conducted certain tests and as of that time, at least, the defendant had a low sperm count. However, this witness did not state categorically that it would have been a physical impossibility for the defendant to have impregnated the plaintiff some twelve to fifteen months earlier.
As also bearing upon this issue, prior to trial defendant demanded a blood typing of himself, the plaintiff and the child. These tests were conducted and based on the results thereof the person making these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Golf v. Town of La Veta
- Barbour v. Hanover School Dist. No. 28
-
Marriage of Mizer, In re, 83CA1045
...based upon the reasonable needs of the child and ability of the father to pay, the amount, if any, of the increase. Rapson v. Rapson, 165 Colo. 188, 437 P.2d 780 (1968); Berge v. Berge, In its evaluation of "[t]he financial resources of the noncustodial parent," pursuant to § 14-10-115(1)(e......
-
Proctor v. Proctor
...471, 706 P.2d 1238 (Ct.App.1985) (voluntary retirement does not affect one's ability to earn in the labor market); Rapson v. Rapson, 165 Colo. 188, 437 P.2d 780 (1968) (father who quit work to attend school still has earning capacity); Ohler v. Ohler, 220 Neb. 272, 369 N.W.2d 615 (1985) (no......
-
Voluntary Early Retirement as a Factor in Modifying Maintenance
...However, such an argument may not necessarily be accorded much weight 46 under the holding enunciated in the case of Rapson v. Rapson, 437 P.2d 780 (Colo. 1968). discussion in the text at note 13. 13. See Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and Proceed......
-
Maintenance in Colorado: Issues and Factors
...separation). 21. Berge v. Berge, 522 P.2d 752 (Colo.App. 1974) (lump-sum child support approved for Norway resident); Rapson v. Rapson, 437 P.2d 780 (Colo. 1968) (voluntarily unemployed college student ordered to pay child support). 22. In re Marriage of Gray, 813 P.2d 819 (Colo.App. 1991) ......
-
Calculation of Potential Income in Child Support Matters
...years of age or younger for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility. CRS § 14-10-115(7)(b)(I). 2. CRS § 14-10-115(7)(b)(III). 3. 437 P.2d 780 (Colo. 1968). 4. CRS § 14-10-115. 5. Rapson, supra, note 3 at 782. See also, In re Marriage of McCarthy, 533 P.2d 928 (Colo.App. 1975) (not......