Rodgers v. Rodgers, 14216.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 14216. |
| Citation | 102 Colo. 94,76 P.2d 1104 |
| Parties | RODGERS v. RODGERS. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.
Divorce proceeding by Anna S. Rodgers against Le Roy C. Rodgers wherein defendant filed a petition for relief from further payment of alimony. The petition having been granted, the plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for the resumption of alimony payments. Decree denying further alimony or support money, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Benjamin C. Hilliard, Jr., and George A. Trout both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Ireland & Blackman, Clarence L. Ireland, and R. H. Blackman, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a judgment denying her further alimony as the divorced wife of defendant. Motion for a new trial was denied.
The parties were married in 1908. A daughter was born in 1913. In 1928 plaintiff obtained a divorce in a noncontested action, and included in the decree was an order that defendant pay her $100 a month 'for the support of herself and said minor child.' He made these payments regularly until in 1934 the payments were reduced to $75 a month, the daughter having become of age. Later, by stipulation, the amount was reduced to $60 a month. Meanwhile the daughter had married an aviator, who, because of uncertainty of employment, had great difficulty in supporting himself and his wife. The plaintiff had been living with them for the last two years.
On December 18, 1934, defendant filed a petition in which he alleged that he had paid over $7,500 to the plaintiff; that he then was unemployed, and asked that he 'be relieved by decree of this court from any further or other payments to this plaintiff on account of alimony.' On January 5, 1935, the court ordered 'that alimony payments cease in the future, until the further order of this court.'
March 26, 1937, plaintiff filed a petition for the resumption of alimony payments. At the hearing she testified that defendant was then employed by the government at a salary of $150 a month; that the only income she had was $20 a month from a small house in North Denver, which is mortgaged for $800 and is thirty-five years old, and out of which she had to pay water rent, taxes, and interest, leaving a net income of $14.50 a month; that she was fifty-three years old, in poor health, and unable to work because of an operation for cancer some years previous; and, finally, that she, her daughter and son-in-law were having difficulty in getting enough food.
Defendant admitted that he was getting $150 a month from the Sterling Production Credit Association; that he had been married twice since his divorce; that his second wife had died and left some insurance money (amount not disclosed). He detailed his monthly expenses as follows: 'Now, I make a payment of $30 a month on the cost of a house, which I engaged to buy. Grocery bill around $40 a month; fuel, light and heat about $23.50 a month;
These items amount to a total of $148. He has a life estate in forty acres of land in Illinois, the net income from which he gives to the daughter. That amounted to $47 in 1936. He also stated that there had been a second mortgage on the North Denver house of $300 or $400 which he paid. Including this, the total amount he had paid the plaintiff was $8,003.50.
The court in its finding and decree denied further alimony or support money.
It is apparent that the court, after learning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Hall
... ... 100 Colo. 301, 67 P.2d 72; Canary v. Canary, 89 ... Colo. 483, 3 P.2d 802; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo ... 94, 76 P.2d 1104. We never have held that a property ... settlement ... ...
-
Fried v. Fried
...288 N.W. 909; Fisher v. Fisher, 237 Ky. 823, 36 S.W.2d 635; Christensen v. Christensen, 295 Mich. 203, 294 N.W. 154; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104, 1106. In the last-cited case it was held: 'A man may not shun marital obligations assumed in one relationship by contracting o......
-
Elmer v. Elmer, 22187
...absence of an abuse of that discretion it will not be disturbed on review. Moses v. Moses, 155 Colo. 340, 394 P.2d 601; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104; Van Gordor v. Van Gordor, 54 Colo. 57, 129 P. 226, 44 L.R.A., N.S., From a review of the record, reading the briefs of coun......
-
Schleiger v. Schleiger
...to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on review. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104. We held in International Trust v. Liebhardt, 111 Colo. 208, 214, 139 P.2d 264, 267, 147 A.L.R. 700, concerning Sec. 8, Ch. 5......
-
ARTICLE 10
...unmarried are not controlling on the amount of alimony to be awarded, they are deserving of careful consideration. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104 (1938). A personal judgment against a husband in a divorce action for alimony in a sum not justified by the record should not be ......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...unmarried are not controlling on the amount of alimony to be awarded, they are deserving of careful consideration. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104 (1938). A personal judgment against a husband in a divorce action for alimony in a sum not justified by the record should not be ......
-
Chapter 23 - § 23.3 • MAINTENANCE
...original subject matter and personal jurisdiction continues to have modification jurisdiction. C.R.S. § 14-5-211(a); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 76 P.2d 1104 (Colo. 1938); Diegel v. Diegel, 215 P. 143 (Colo. 1923). Unless an underlying agreement or decree provides otherwise, maintenance automatical......