Reick v. Reick, 18229
| Decision Date | 12 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 18229,18229 |
| Citation | 652 P.2d 916 |
| Parties | Diane Walch REICK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald Thomas REICK, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Brad L. Swaner of Swaner & Taylor, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Pete N. Vlahos, Ogden, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an appeal from an order increasing child support in a divorce matter from $150 to $225 per month. The order was based on a substantial change in circumstances over about a nine-year period from the date of the decree of June 13, 1972.
It is clear that the amount required to satisfy the needs of a nine-month old infant at the time of divorce and those of a ten-year old girl in December, 1981 (the date of the award here appealed), has increased substantially. The only remaining question of substance is the "ability to pay" of the child's parents, each of whom has the duty to satisfy such needs of the child.
On appeal, defendant urges, among other things, that plaintiff deserves no standing in court because of her fraud and deceit in concealing her remarriage to another man while continuing to receive a $50 monthly alimony. 1 As to the support award, this contention can be viewed only as a diversionary issue. Deception between spouses has no significance in determining the basic and unalienable right to child support, since such right is vested in the minor. The suggestion that the mother here, having "unclean hands," has no standing in court, may have pertinence as to a personal claim against her husband but not as to that of the child. 2
Defendant also contends that there were no changed circumstances in this case justifying an increase in child support, and that in ordering such increase, the court abused its discretion to the point of prejudicial error. The believable admissible facts of this case justify no such contention. At the time of the divorce, defendant was employed at $800 per month. At the time of the order to show cause, he was earning $2,148 per month. The plaintiff's income had increased also, to $1,875 per month. The parties furnished itemized statements of expenses. After weighing the evidence, the court found that "there has been a material change of circumstances" in that the parties have both improved their incomes and that "the needs of the child have increased." The court ruled that the defendant, who had stipulated to and agreed to pay $150 per month for child support nine years before, could and should pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargett v. Limberg, Civ. No. C-83-0162W.
...that a child's vested rights to child support cannot be cut-off due to the neglect or other failure of the parents. See Reick v. Reick, 652 P.2d 916, 917 (Utah 1982); Szarek v. Sandoval, 636 P.2d 1082, 1085 (Utah In Szarek, the Utah Supreme Court held that any statute limiting the time in w......
-
Dobson v. Dobson
...child and should not be considered as income to Ms. Williamson for purposes of calculating alimony.” Id. ¶ 12;see also Reick v. Reick, 652 P.2d 916, 917 (Utah 1982) (“[T]he basic and unalienable right to child support ... is vested in the minor.”). ¶ 11 It is typically best practice for tri......
-
Stevens v. Stevens
...attachment of the schedule to appellant's brief is improper since it was not offered into evidence at trial. See Reick v. Reick, 652 P.2d 916, 918 (Utah 1982); Hansen v. Hansen, 736 P.2d 1055, 1056 (Utah Ct.App.1987).3 Appellant may, of course, recover the statutory witness fee plus mileage......
- Guardian ad Litem v. State ex rel. C.D.