Shulman v. Shulman
| Decision Date | 11 May 1954 |
| Citation | 125 Cal.App.2d 120,269 P.2d 923 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SHULMAN v. SHULMAN. Civ. 15857. |
Pearl L. Shulman, in pro. per.
Desky & Lindsay, Monroe Friedman, Elaine F. Nemer, Oakland, for respondent.
On January 4, 1951, plaintiff obtained 'Final Judgment of Divorce' from defendant, wherein defendant was ordered to pay the sum of $280 per month for alimony and support of the two minor children of the parties. One of these children reached majority and the amount of monthly payment was reduced thereby to $240. In May, 1951, both parties filed affidavits and requests for modification of the support payments, the plaintiff seeking to have such payments increased, the defendant seeking to have them decreased. After hearing in June, 1951, both of these requests were denied. In November, 1952, defendant filed his affidavit and requst for a decrease of support and in January, 1953, plaintiff filed her affidavit and request for an increase of support. Both of these requests were heard in January, 1953, and the court modified the final decree of divorce by reducing the amount of support for plaintiff and the minor daughter from $240 per month to $150 per month.
Plaintiff appeals from this order.
The record does not include any transcripts of the original divorce action or of the proceedings on the former applications for modification of the divorce decree. Appellant has, however, incorporated in her briefs certain excerpts from these earlier proceedings, which are not, of course, properly before us at this time.
Appellant contends that the court erred in ordering the modification of the decree, without having before it any evidence of change of condition of the parties since the last hearing requesting modification. She cites Snyder v. Snyder, 219 Cal. 80, 25 P.2d 403, for this proposition. That case does so hold, but here the record affirmatively shows evidence of change in condition since the prior hearing. There is testimony that respondent's income for the year 1951 was $3,156.43, and that during that year respondent paid appellant $2,880, and that in 1951 defendant sold a diamond ring in order to realize $1,500. It also appears that appellant in October, 1951, transferred her home to her sister without consideration, although this house was worth $11,000 less an encumbrance of $2,500.
In 1952 respondent's earnings from his junk business amounted to $3,241.34, of which amount, after depreciation, $2,504.50 was taxable profit. Respondent paid appellant approximately $2,700 under the court's order and found it necessary to borrow $2,000 from a bank,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bratnober v. Bratnober
...plaintiff cites the sizable sum he borrowed from his mother to meet the payments originally scheduled. Shulman v. Shulman, 125 Cal.App.2d 120, 121-122, 269 P.2d 923. Certainly, it cannot be disputed that 'the trial court entering the decree still retains jurisdiction to modify its orders if......
-
C.S. v. G.S. (In re Marriage of C.S.)
...trial, appellate court "may not reweigh the evidence and are bound by the trial court's credibility determinations"]; Shulman v. Shulman (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 120, 122 [in reviewing modification of alimony award for abuse of discretion, "[i]t is not the province of [the appellate court] to ......
-
Bratnober v. Bratnober, 16506
...and paid over from one to the other. Respondent invokes Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 148 P.2d 381, and Shulman v. Shulman, 125 Cal.App.2d 120, 269 P.2d 923, as holding that the incurrence of financial obligations to third parties is a proper subject for consideration on a motion to ......