Reese v. Reese

• Decision Date: 16 March 1961
• Citation: 11 Cal.Rptr. 590,190 Cal.App.2d 181
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Lucille REESE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank L. REESE, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 9971.

Page 590

11 Cal.Rptr. 590

190 Cal.App.2d 181

Lucille REESE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank L. REESE, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 9971.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

March 16, 1961.

Robert R. Elledge by Charles M. Samson, Modesto, for appellant.

George G. Murry, Gustine, for respondent.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from an order finding appellant in contempt for failure to pay child support and denying appellant's motion for a modification of the child support order.

An interlocutory decree of divorce was rendered in an action for divorce brought by respondent against appellant. The interlocutory decree, filed December 28, 1953, provided that appellant herein should pay respondent $75 per month for the support of the minor son of the parties who was then seven years old. The mother was given custody. At that time appellant was employed, earning $250 per month, and received as part compensation a house and utilities furnished by his employer. He was also receiving a veteran's disability pension in the sum of $125 per month. He paid child support as ordered for a period of 61 months, that is, from January 1, 1954, through January, 1959. In January, 1959, appellant was hospitalized with a 'chronic condition of hypertension, kidney condition and heart condition,' which had resulted in a 'convulsive seizure.' His doctor testified that appellant was chronically ill and that his employability and life expectancy were very limited. Appellant ceased making any support payments and respondent herein brought proceedings to have him declared in contempt. Thereupon appellant moved for a modification of the support provisions and both matters were heard at one time. The trial court found him in contempt and ordered him to pay to pay the full sum monthly for child support and in addition to pay $30 per month on arrearages. The court denied his motion to modify. From both orders he has appealed.

In matters such as these, the trial court has a broad discretion and its orders will be reversed except where it appears that there has been an abuse of that discretion. As to the contempt matter it was found that at the time of the hearing appellant was in default in the sum of $750 for child support and that he the ability to make said payments. He had not been employed since his seizure. His only income during this perior was his pension of $125 per month. Mathematically speaking, he could have paid the $75 per month, leaving him $50 per month wherewith to feed, clothe and house himself, to which sum could be added whatever he could earn with his 'very, very limited' capacity for employment. But appellant had remarried and his present wife was shown to be earning $300 per month. The couple owned no property, not even a home and his present wife testified without contradiction that she was indebted on promissory notes in the sum of $1,600, which called for payments in the sum of $100 per month, as to which she was in arrears. While a wife must support a husband, when he has not deserted her,...