Young v. Young
| Decision Date | 07 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 692 |
| Citation | 262 Ala. 254,78 So.2d 265 |
| Parties | Dorra Ross YOUNG v. Brewer Hamilton YOUNG. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Potts & Young, Florence, for appellant.
Mitchell & Poellnitz, Florence, for appellee.
Appeal from a decree of the Law and Equity Court, in equity, of Lauderdale County, modifying an award of alimony.
Appellant and appellee, wife and husband respectively, were divorced on March 19, 1942, with a decree of divorce, as modified on July 24, 1942, providing for payment by appellee to appellant of $10 per week as alimony and also requiring him to pay monthly installments of $27.20 each (presumably payments on a mortgage loan) on a house and lot belonging to appellant and the parties' two children, a two-thirds' interest being owned by appellant and the children together owning the remaining one-third interest. In 1952, appellee filed a petition seeking modification of the decree so as to relieve him of the payment of alimony and the monthly installments on the house and lot. He alleged in his petition, as the basis for relief, 'that his circumstances have changed since the enrollment of the decrees of this court and that his physical condition is impaired so that his ability to work long hours has been decreased, resulting in diminishment to his professional income and reasonable expectations of future earnings; that his financial obligations have increased and his earning capacity decreased'.
Appellant answered the petition, making her answer a cross-petition. She seeks by her cross-petition modification of the alimony award in her favor by increasing the amount from $10 per week to $30 per week. As a basis for such relief it is alleged in the cross-petition that appellee 'is now in better financial condition than he was at the time the decree which is sought to be modified by his petition was rendered on July 24, 1942'; that since that time the health of appellant, cross-petitioner, 'has become greatly impaired' and that she has had to expend, for the past five years, large sums for medical expense, physicians' fees and hospital bills; that she frequently loses time from her employment, without pay for time lost, due to her physical condition and has been advised by her physician that she should stop working; that at the time of the rendition of the decree sought to be modified, appellee had the custody and burden of support of their two minor children and that he does not now have that burden; that 'the cost of living has substantially increased since the rendition of the decree sought to be modified' and that she 'is not now able to adequately support herself on the amount of income which she has and the limited alimony which' appellee 'is now paying her'.
On the issues thus presented, testimony of the parties and seven witnesses was taken orally before the court. Evidence of three witnesses was taken by deposition. The trial court rendered a decree modifying the former decree by relieving appellee 'from further payments of $10.00 per week alimony' to appellant, but providing that that portion of the former decree requiring appellee 'to keep up the payments on the house is not changed'. The effect of this, of course, was to deny to the wife her petition to have the alimony increased to $30 per week.
We have carefully examined the evidence and have discussed it fully in consultation. There does not appear to be any material conflict in the evidence bearing on the question of changed circumstances. The problem for us, then, is to analyze it and determine from it whether there has been such a substantial change in the husband's financial condition, or other change of circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stapleton v. Stapleton
...evidence sufficient basis for the trial court's decree we have no alternative but to reverse. Such is the case. . . .' Young v. Young, 262 Ala. 254, 257, 78 So.2d 265, 267. Appellant has suggested of record that, since the submission of this cause in this court, appellee has died and that t......
-
Norton v. Norton
...has no savings or reserve for contingencies is also relevant. Miner v. Miner, 10 Wis.2d 438, 103 N.W.2d 4. In the case of Young v. Young, 262 Ala. 254, 78 So.2d 265, the court said: 'The mere fact that the wife has secured employment since the entry of the decree for alimony is not within i......
-
St. Clair Industries, Inc. v. Harmon's Pipe & Fitting Co.
...a sufficient basis for the trial court's decree. Baker v. Citizens Bank of Guntersville et al., 282 Ala. 33, 208 So.2d 601; Young v. Young, 262 Ala. 254, 78 So.2d 265. We are at the conclusion that in this case the trial court misapplied the principles of law involved, and that there is no ......
-
O'Dell v. O'Dell
...change in financial condition, Steele v. Steele, 277 Ala. 13, 166 So.2d 790; Whittle v. Whittle, 272 Ala. 32, 128 So.2d 92; Young v. Young, 262 Ala. 254, 78 So.2d 265. The sound reasoning of this line of cases is equally applicable to every factual condition which might be asserted as chang......