Weston v. Weston, 11485.
| Docket Nº | 11485. |
| Citation | 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534 |
| Case Date | December 06, 1926 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
251 P. 534
80 Colo. 323
WESTON
v.
WESTON.
No. 11485.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
December 6, 1926
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F. Dunklee, Judge.
Action by Guadalupe Weston against Guy S. S. Weston. Decree for plaintiff for separate maintenance was modified, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
See, also, 246 P. 790.
[80 Colo. 324] Henry E. May and Albert E. Bogdon, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Luke J. Kavanaugh, of Denver, for defendant in error.
DENISON, J.
Guadalupe Weston had a decree for separate maintenance by monthly payments. After many payments were in default the court modified the decree, inter alia, by changing the future payments from $80 to $30, and adjudging that the alimony accrued and unpaid be considered as paid in full. She brings error. She claims: (1) That the evidence does not justify the change from $80 to $30; (2) that the court has no power to modify a decree for accrued alimony.
Upon the first point, the trial court is in a better position to judge than we. As to the second, we are forced to say that plaintiff in error is right. McGregor v. McGregor, 52 Colo. 292, 122 P. 390; Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 682, 54 L.Ed. 905, 28 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1068, 20 Ann.Cas. 1061. See, also, Craig v. Craig, 163 Ill. 176, 45 N.E. 153; Kell v. Kell, 179 Iowa 647, 161 N.W. 634; Beers v. Beers, 74 Wash. 458, 133 P. 605; Livingston v. Livingston, 173 N.Y. 377, 66 N.E. 123, 61 L.R.A. 800, 93 Am.St.Rep. 600; Delbridge v. Sears, 179 Iowa 526, 160 N.W. 218; Myers v. Myers, 62 Utah 90, 218 P. 123, 30 A.L.R. 74.
Defendant in error cites Johnson v. Johnson, 78 Colo. 187, 240 P. 944; Willoughby v. Willoughby, 71 Colo. 356, 360, 206 P. 792; Huff v. Huff, 77 Colo. 15, [80 Colo. 325] 234 P. 167; Stevens v. Stevens, 31 Colo. 188, 72 P. 1061; Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo. 522, 122 P. 766; Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; but in none of these cases was it held that accrued alimony could be canceled, and what was said in the opinions must, of course, be interpreted with regard to the facts then before the court. In Huff v. Huff, 77 Colo. at page 17, 234 P. 168, the court says:
'* * * Such court [district] has the authority to modify the decree relative to alimony payable in the future, * * * as the changed circumstances of the parties may render necessary and just. * * *'
The judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engleman v. Engleman, No. 19568
...order constitute a debt and are in and of themselves judgments. See Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768; Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534; Ferkovich v. Ferkovich, 130 Colo. 228, 274 P.2d 602; Burke v. Burke, 127 Colo. 257, 255 P.2d 740; Beardshear v. Beardshear, 143 Colo......
-
Greer v. Greer, 15217.
...of a court to modify a judgment for alimony extends only to future installments and not to alimony already accrued. Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534. See, also, Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768, and 27 C.J.S., Divorce, p. 1089, § 276. The order of March 2 provided tha......
-
Garvin v. Garvin, 15015.
...have no power to cancel such payments. 27 C.J.S., Divorce,§ 322, p. 1239. Colorado is committed to the majority rule. Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534. See, also, McGregor v. McGregor, 52 Colo. 292, 122 P. 290. The fact that defendant was only delinquent in the amount of $12.50 (c......
-
Pomponio v. Larsen, 11454.
...this proceeding could have been granted in the former action. The matters involved were not within the exclusive jurisdiction of equity. [80 Colo. 323] But plaintiff urges that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was not proper in any event, and that the court erred in sustaini......
-
Engleman v. Engleman, No. 19568
...order constitute a debt and are in and of themselves judgments. See Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768; Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534; Ferkovich v. Ferkovich, 130 Colo. 228, 274 P.2d 602; Burke v. Burke, 127 Colo. 257, 255 P.2d 740; Beardshear v. Beardshear, 143 Colo......
-
Greer v. Greer, 15217.
...of a court to modify a judgment for alimony extends only to future installments and not to alimony already accrued. Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534. See, also, Garvin v. Garvin, 108 Colo. 415, 118 P.2d 768, and 27 C.J.S., Divorce, p. 1089, § 276. The order of March 2 provided tha......
-
Garvin v. Garvin, 15015.
...have no power to cancel such payments. 27 C.J.S., Divorce,§ 322, p. 1239. Colorado is committed to the majority rule. Weston v. Weston, 80 Colo. 323, 251 P. 534. See, also, McGregor v. McGregor, 52 Colo. 292, 122 P. 290. The fact that defendant was only delinquent in the amount of $12.50 (c......
-
Pomponio v. Larsen, 11454.
...this proceeding could have been granted in the former action. The matters involved were not within the exclusive jurisdiction of equity. [80 Colo. 323] But plaintiff urges that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was not proper in any event, and that the court erred in sustaini......