Travis v. Travis

• Decision Date: 28 August 1969
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 5611,1
• Citation: Travis v. Travis, 19 Mich.App. 128, 172 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. App. 1969)
• Parties: Albert TRAVIS, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Appellant, v. Salwa TRAVIS, Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 491

172 N.W.2d 491

19 Mich.App. 128

Albert TRAVIS, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Appellant, v. Salwa TRAVIS, Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff Appellee.

Docket No. 5611.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Aug. 28, 1969.

Released for Publication Dec. 12, 1969.

Robert O. Brown, Michael H. Feiler, Riley & Roumell, Detroit, for appellant.

Dykema, Wheat, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, for appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and LEVIN and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On May 2, 1968 the trial court granted a judgment of divorce to the appellee Salwa Travis. The appellee was awarded child custody, child support, a property settlement and attorney fees. Albert Travis, the husband and appellant, filed a timely claim of appeal contending that the child support award of $20 per week per child, $40 total, is excessive; that the property settlement was made without regard to the funds acquired by appellant before the marriage; and that the award of eight hundred and fifty dollars to the wife's attorney was excessive. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Appellant's first contention is that the amount of child support is excessive, a total of $40 per week or $2,080 annually. Appellant seeks to support this contention solely on the ground that his income for the preceding year was approximately $3,385. The general rule regarding the amount to be allowed for child support is stated in 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (1961 Rev.), § 14.84.

'The amount to be allowed for the support of children is within the sound discretion of the court, but should be reasonable in view of the status of the parties and requirements of the children, the age and health of the children, the income of the mother, and the ability of the husband to pay. However, the amount of support must be fair and not a confiscatory burden on the parent; and the financial ability of the husband to pay, although a substantial element in determining the amount of support for a child is not, of course, the sole factor to be considered. Nevertheless, the duty of a father to contribute to the maintenance of his children is not limited to his income. The court may also take into consideration the father's ability to labor and earn money and make an award based thereon, even though the father owns no property.' (Emphasis supplied.)

In the present case the appellant was awarded assets in excess of $40,000. Moreover, he has been content with a...