Vought v. Vought
| Decision Date | 24 November 1959 |
| Citation | 22 Misc.2d 356,195 N.Y.S.2d 521 |
| Parties | Eugenie A. VOUGHT, Plaintiff, v. Chance M. VOUGHT, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City, for plaintiff.
Pross, Smith, Halpern & Lefevre, New York City, for defendant.
After trial of this separation suit resulting in decision and final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the then trial justice, Mr. Justice Stevens (having been elevated to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court), made an order of reference to an official referee to take testimony and report with respect to defendant's wealth and income, the standard of living of the parties, the legal services and disbursements necessary in the prosecution of plaintiff's action. The order further directed that upon the coming in of the referee's report an order be made and entered granting to plaintiff, as she may be entitled, permanent alimony and support for herself and the two infant children of the parties, arrears of temporary alimony and reasonable counsel fee and disbursements, the same to be added to the foot of the final decree.
Plaintiff now moves by order to show cause for confirmation of so much of the referee's report as finds her entitled to temporary alimony and for disaffirmance or modification of the remaining findings of the referee relating to the means of the defendant and the standard of living of the parties, also the necessary legal services rendered in behalf of the plaintiff and disbursements necessarily incurred in the prosecution of this cause. Plaintiff also seeks to punish defendant for contempt for his failure to make payment of temporary alimony and for a direction that plaintiff be permitted to proceed by plenary action on the surety's arrest bond upon default of the defendant (now a non-resident of New York) in making substantial payment of the arrears of temporary alimony and counsel fees and in failing to submit his person to the jurisdiction of this court.
With respect to the last mentioned relief sought, it appears that prior to the completion of the reference the defendant was arrested pursuant to an order of arrest and released upon the filing of a surety bond in the sum of $15,000 requiring him, according to its terms, to 'obey the direction of the court * * * or, in default of his so doing, that at all times he will render himself amenable to proceeding to punish him for the omission'.
In view of the nature of the undertaking and the fact that the amount of arrears of alimony and counsel fees had not been determined before the making of this motion, plaintiff's application to punish defendant fro contempt and for permission to proceed against the surety on the bond is premature. It may properly be the subject of a further application should defendant fail to pay arrears of temporary alimony, counsel fees and permanent alimony required to be paid upon the order to be entered hereon.
The defendant cross-moves for confirmation of so much of the referee's findings as relates to his financial means and overrules the claim for disbursements. In addition, he requests a modification of the counsel fee proposed and a retroactive reduction of temporary alimony together with a consequent retroactive reduction of the arrears of temporary alimony.
No transcript of the minutes of the hearing held before the referee have been submitted on this application. The court confirms the findings of fact and recommendations set forth in the report of the experienced and wise referee.
The referee found that from January 1, 1952, to the date of his report, the defendant received from all sources the sum of $873,761.11 and that he expended during that time the sum of $753,953.48 by way of living expenses for himself and family and other accounted expenditures, having failed to prove the expenditure or other disposition of the difference between those two figures, to wit, the sum of $119,807.63. The referee reported that from December 17, 1951, to January 1, 1956, the parties expended on the average $60,000 a year for living expenses.
The referee reports: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sol v. Sol
...127 Misc.2d 436, 486 N.Y.S.2d 637 (Fam.Ct.1985), appeal dismissed, 129 A.D.2d 582, 513 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (1987); Vought v. Vought, 22 Misc.2d 356, 195 N.Y.S.2d 521 (Sup.Ct.1959); see Petrini v. Petrini, 336 Md. 453, 648 A.2d 1016 (1994) (applying statute specifically referring to Because I agre......
-
Kay v. Kay
...more than he earns, and the interests of the child justify the award. (Swanton v. Curley, 273 N.Y. 325, 7 N.E.2d 250; Vought v. Vought, 22 Misc.2d 356, 195 N.Y.S.2d 521; Zellermayer v. Zellermayer, 36 A.D.2d 636, 319 N.Y.S.2d Indeed, as to alimony and child support both, if it were necessar......
-
Lenz v. Lenz
...award, also take into consideration the possibility of gifts or advances under the Residual Trust, and cites Vought v. Vought (1959), 22 Misc.2d 356, 195 N.Y.S.2d 521, where, under somewhat similar circumstances, an award for support was reduced to 100 per cent of the husband's wages. This ......
-
Brandt v. Brandt
...deigns to earn, but what he is potentially able to earn in light of his established physical and mental capabilities. (See Vought v. Vought, 22 Misc.2d 356, 195 N.Y .S.2d Defendant in the instant case has maintained a standard of gracious living, leaving to others the execution of responsib......