Tremayne v. Tremayne
| Decision Date | 18 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | 7348 |
| Citation | 211 P.2d 452,116 Utah 483 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | TREMAYNE v. TREMAYNE |
The Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, J Allen Crockett, J., awarded the plaintiff a divorce and about four-fifths of the property accumulated by the parties during the marriage, and from that portion of the judgment dividing the property, the defendant appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed.
The Supreme Court, WADE, J., affirmed the judgment, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the property, and that federal statute did not prevent District Court from taking into consideration terminal leave bond of the defendant and did not prevent District Court from enforcing its judgment by threat of punishment of defendant for contempt unless he paid into court equivalent of bond.
D H. Oliver, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Clyde Mecham & White, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from the judgment of the district court dividing the property of the parties between them in a divorce action, wherein plaintiff, respondent herein, was awarded a divorce but he does not appeal from that part of the judgment. She cross-appeals from the part of the judgment which divides the property. Each claims that such division is unjust and inequitable.
They were married December 19, 1941, at that time both were living at Rupert, Idaho. He was 23 years old, had three years of normal college credits and was teaching school. She was a high school student, 18 years old, who lacked only a few credits for graduation, which she later made up. The attack on Pearl Harbor and America's entrance into the war were very recent events and defendant immediately joined the Navy and they moved to California where they both took jobs until he was called into active service about three months later. He remained in the Navy until October 11, 1945, spent 7 months overseas and the rest of that time he was stationed in the United States and they lived together. On account of his transfers she was required to move 16 times during his service period. Except for the necessary time of moving, she was gainfully employed.
While in the service he made an allotment to her of $ 75 per month and with theadditional savings from both of their pay checks they set as a goal to save $ 200 per month. When he was discharged they had accumulated a joint savings of $ 5,000.00. Eight hundred dollars thereof was invested in a car. They returned to Idaho where during the next school year he taught school and she obtained other employment at Mountain Home, Idaho. Commencing with the fall term of 1946 they both attended the Utah State Agricultural College, living from his G.I. Bill of Rights allowance supplemented by withdrawals from their savings and money he earned from occasional jobs. They spent the summer of 1947 at Berkeley, California, where he attended the University of California for one semester and she worked at the Bank of America, and in the fall they came to Salt Lake City where he attended the University of Utah for four quarters or a full year, and she first worked for a local bank then for the University of Utah where she was still employed at the time of the trial on February 16, 1949. While he was attending the University of Utah she took some dancing lessons and has earned about enough to pay for them from employment as a professional dancer in entertainments put on at the University Stadium.
While he was in school, both at Berkeley and at the University of Utah, they have lived from his G. I. Bill of Rights money and her earnings supplemented by his occasional earnings from odd jobs and withdrawals from their savings. Throughout their married life in addition to working or going to school she has taken care of the home and all of their money has been pooled into a joint fund. As a result of his schooling his earning capacity has been substantially increased but except from her added experience as an office girl and typist, hers has not. There are no children and each of the parties is capable of earning a living. The court found that they had accumulated property of a value of $ 2057.00 which it divided between them.
She was awarded $ 1176.00 worth of property and in addition thereto he was ordered to pay her in monthly installments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Martinez
...in dividing the marital property and awarding alimony. See, e.g., Kerr v. Kerr, 610 P.2d 1380 (Utah 1980); Tremayne v. Tremayne, 116 Utah 483, 211 P.2d 452 (1949). Here, the trial court found that the parties would have enjoyed a higher family income because of Dr. Martinez's increased inco......
-
Petersen v. Petersen
...medical corporation, as in Dogu, may involve related questions, the legal issues regarding the two are distinct.In Tremayne v. Tremayne, 116 Utah 483, 211 P.2d 452 (1949), the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's property division and award of alimony to the wife, referring to the wife's ......
-
Kerr v. Kerr
...30-3-5; see also English v. English, Utah, 565 P.2d 409 (1977); Naylor v. Naylor, Utah, 563 P.2d 184 (1977).2 See Tremayne v. Tremayne, 116 Utah 483, 211 P.2d 452 (1949).3 Utah, 584 P.2d 864 (1978).4 Davis v. Riley, 20 Utah 2d 325, 437 P.2d 453 (1968).5 Utah, 605 P.2d 771 (1980).6 U.C.A., 1......
-
Madsen v. Madsen, 8151
...Utah 196, 111 P.2d 792; Callister v. Callister, 1 Utah 2d 34, 261 P.2d 944.2 Allen v. Allen, 109 Utah 99, 165 P.2d 872; Tremayne v. Tremayne, 116 Utah 483, 211 P.2d 452.1 Barraclough v. Barraclough, 100 Utah 196, 111 P.2d 792; Callister v. Callister, 1 Utah 2d 34, 261 P.2d 944.2 Allen v. Al......
-
Recent Twists and Turns in the Evolution of Alimony
...in dividing the marital property and awarding alimony. See, e.g., Kerr v. Kerr, 610 P.2d 1380 (Utah, 1980); Tremayne v. Tremayne, 116 Utah 483, 211 P.2d 452 (1949). 818 P.2d at 542. Justice Durham dissented from the majority. She declared that in a case such as Martinez where there was insu......