Reynolds v. Reynolds.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1913
• Citation: Reynolds v. Reynolds., 78 S.E. 360, 72 W.Va. 349 (W. Va. 1913)
• Parties: Reynolds v. Reynolds.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

72 W.Va. 349

Reynolds

v.Reynolds.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 11, 1912.

Decided April 29, 1913.

1.Divorce Appeal Subsequent Proceedings Below Allowance of Alimony.

On an appeal by the husband from a decree granting the wife a divorce a mensa et thoro, and decreeing a conveyance to the wife of the husband's real estate, as permanent alimony, the decree, as to separation, was affirmed, but, in respect to taking lands for alimony, was reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the lower court to enter a "reasonable money decree" for alimony.Held: That the chancellor has discretion to allow alimony from the date of the decree of divorce.(p. 351).

2.Same: Appeal and Error Amount of Alimony Discretion.

The amount of alimony, proper to he allowed, depends upon the wife's needs and station in life, and upon the husband's means and ability to earn money; and the chancellor is vested with a wide judicial discretion in determining what is a proper amount, and his finding will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that he has abused his discretion.(p. 352).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wood County.Suit by Emma P. Reynolds against William 0.Reynolds.From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

John F. Laird, for appellant, Thomas Coleman, for appellee.

Williams, Judge:

This is the second appeal in this divorce suit, both taken by the husband.The decision on the former appeal is reported in 68 W. Va. 15, and contains a statement of the facts.The two decrees, first appealed from, were rendered on the 20th December, 1907, and the 30th December, 1908, respectively.The former granted the wife a decree of divorce a mensa, and decreed a conveyance to her of certain real estate in Parkersburg, owned by her husband, as permanent alimony, and the latter, rendered after the filing of an answer and cross-bill by the husband, who had theretofore been proceeded against by order of publication, simply confirmed the former, and decreed costs against the husband and his surety on his bond.This court reversed the first decree in respect to the taking of real estate for alimony, and the second in respect to costs, and affirmed them in all other respects, and remanded the cause with direction to the lower court to render a "reasonable money decree" for alimony.Thereupon, on 8th February, 1911, the lower court determined that twelve dollars per month, payable in quarterly installments of thirty-six dollars, during the joint lives of husband and wife, or until their reconciliation, was a reasonable alimony, and decreed that it be paid from the 20th December, 1907, the date of the decfee appealed from.It ascertained that $444.00 was due as of 20th January, 1911, and credited that sum with $224.55, the costs of the appeal which it was decreed the wife should pay, thus leaving a balance of $219.45 for the husband to pay on account of back alimony and out of that sum the court decreed $177.00 to the wife's counsel, of which $150.00 was for his fees for services rendered in her behalf in the lower court and in this Court, and $27.00 on account of costs paid for her.From that decree the present appeal was taken.

It is insisted that the lower court did not follow the mandate, in that it did not enter a decree for appellant's costs incurred in the prosecution of his appeal, and allowed an unreasonable alimony.This Court decreed costs of the appeal against the wife, and it was, therefore, not necessary for the lower court to do more than enter the mandate upon its record, so far as it related to the matter of costs.The mandate, by virtue of the statute, became the decree of that court.Sec. 29, ch. 135 Code (1906).Execution for costs was not necessary, because the decree now appealed, from gave credit for the costs on the accrued alimony.That amounted to an actual payment of the costs.

The wife was entitled to alimony from the date of the decree of separation, and the court had so decreed; but it erred in taking the husband's real...