Sherman v. Kent
| Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 87.,87. |
| Citation | 193 N.W. 795,223 Mich. 200 |
| Parties | SHERMAN v. KENT. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County, in Chancery; George V. Weimer, Judge.
Suit by Floy E. Kent Sherman against Glenn B. Kent. From an order as to alimony, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Fred A. Mills, of Kalamazoo, for appellant.
Stearns & Kleinstuck, of Kalamazoo, for appellee.
The parties to this proceeding were divorced by a decree of the Kalamazoo circuit court in chancery September 11, 1913. They had been married about 15 years and had two children Carlos then aged 13, and Ardice then aged 10 years. When they started their married life they had but little of this world's goods, but at the time of the divorce through their combined efforts had accumulated about $10,000 or $12,000 in property. Among the properties then owned by defendant was certain real estate in Kalamazoo upon which there was a mortgage owned by the First State Bank of Allegan for $2,100, and a second mortgage owned by Morris Kent for $1,000. Defendant made a property settlement with plaintiff by which he agreed to turn over to her and the children practically his entire property leaving himself only an equity of less than $100 in a vacant lot, and also agreed to pay the incumbrances on the Kalamazoo property, the fee of which was given to the children subject to plaintiff's life use. Plaintiff was given the custody of the children and was to maintain them. Both parties have again married, and each appears to have been fortunate in the second matrimonial venture. Defendant paid off the Morris Kent mortgage on the Kalamazoo property and $400 on the bank mortgage, but claimed he was unable to make further payments thereon. This petition was thereupon filed asking that he be required so to do. He answered and, by way of cross-petition, asked to have the decree modified so as to relieve him from such payment. From an order granting the prayer of the petition and denying the relief prayed in his cross-petition, defendant appeals.
That the court may modify and revise provisions for alimony is unquestioned. Section 11417, C. L. 1915. But an application to modify a decree under this statute is not a rehearing of the original case, or a review of the equities of the original decree. Smith v. Smith, 139 Mich. 133, 102 N. W. 631. The court on such application considers the changed condition of the parties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Viles v. Viles
...a direct appeal, to have given appropriate consideration to the circumstances which should have affected its judgment. Sherman v. Kent, 1923, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N.W. 795. Moreover, it is quite proper for the court in framing the original decree to anticipate future changes in circumstances ......
-
Viles v. Viles
...a direct appeal, to have given appropriate consideration to the circumstances which should have affected its judgment. Sherman v. Kent, 1923, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N.W. 795. Moreover, it is quite proper for the court in framing the original decree to anticipate future changes in circumstances ......
-
Binkow v. Binkow
...154 Mich. 386, 117 N.W. 890, 19 L.R.A., N.S., 245, 129 Am.St.Rep. 477;Gundick v. Gundick, 208 Mich. 34, 175 N.W. 168;Sherman v. Kent, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N.W. 795;Quinn v. Quinn, 226 Mich. 239, 197 N.W. 504; Gould v. Gould, 226 Mich. 340, 197 N.W. 505;Schweim v. Schweim, 233 Mich. 67, 206 N.......
-
Chipman v. Chipman, 7.
...we said [273 Mich. 7,262 N.W. 332]: ‘That the court may modify and revise provisions for alimony is unquestioned. Sherman v. Kent, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N.W. 795 also 3 Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 12739, 12748. However, there must be a change in the condition of the parties arising since the decree to ......