Ziesel v. Ziesel

• Decision Date: 14 November 1921
• Docket Number: No. 52.,52.
• Citation: 115 A. 435
• Parties: ZIESEL v. ZIESEL.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

115 A. 435

ZIESEL

v. ZIESEL.

No. 52.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 14, 1921.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Proceedings by Marie E. Ziesel against William Ziesel. From an order advised by the Vice Chancellor, defendant appeals. Reversed.

On appeal from an order of the Court of Chancery advised by Vice Chancellor Learning, who delivered orally the following opinion:

"I am a little in doubt. It seems to me that an allowance of $1,500 a year, under all the circumstances, would not be very far from right. That ought to be sufficient to provide for the board of the boy and a fairly liberal expenditure for his education. If $10 a week were allowed for the support of the boy it would be $520, and then if $800 were allowed for the education in addition it would be a total of $1,320 which would be only a little less than $1,500, $800 is cutting down education to a pretty small amount, as charges are made at this time by most colleges, and I do not believe there is any doubt that Dr. Ziesel can afford to pay $1,500 without crippling him. I think that the net income of the doctor is not far from $4,500. I think this item of $2,400 for money borrowed could be excluded from the gross receipts, and in like manner the item of $1,847.29 for repairs and alterations could be excluded from the expenditures, which would leave him approximately the amount I stated, $4,500. With that and the expenses he must bear I should think $1,500 for the support and education of the son would be reasonable. It may not be as much as would be desirable, and it may be more than the doctor cares to pay, but it would not be far from right. In making expenditures for the boy's education the doctor is building a monument for himself that is more desirable even than the pursuits in scientific investigation that he is following. However commendable that research may be, there can be nothing in the nature of a legally imposed duty—and should be a corresponding pleasure—greater than that of the support of your own issue, and that word 'support' should, in all appropriate circumstances, include appropriate education. I think the doctor himself, on mature reflection touching the duties of a parent to his offspring, would be inclined to concede that $1,500 a year allowance is not too much. The income of his wife—his first wife—is limited; she might not have anything left after her own year's expenditures are made. I do not think $1,500 is an unreasonable amount. I will make the allowance. I think it was reasonable to employ an accountant by counsel for complainant, and to make the investigation which was made, and that the expense thus incurred should be paid by the defendant, as well as the master's costs, of course. And I think $75 counsel fee will be proper."

Lewis Starr, of Camden, for appellant.

Leap, Sharpless & Way, of Camden, for respondent.

TRENCHARD, J. This, as will be seen, is an appeal from an order of the Court of Chancery requiring the appellant to pay for the support, maintenance, and education of his minor son, Edward Ziesel.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the order under review, are these:

The parties to the action, Dr. and Mrs. Ziesel, were married January 27, 1889. Three children were born, of whom Edward, the one concerned here, is the youngest. They were divorced in Pennsylvania December 21, 1914. No provision was made in that decree for the support and maintenance of Edward. Apparently the parties removed to Wildwood, N. J., and in the early part of 1916 Mrs. Ziesel filed a bill in the Court of Chancery for the support of Edward, the minor child, and no question was raised as to the Jurisdiction of the court On July 10th of that year a decree was entered in that proceeding, awarding the care, custody, and education of Edward to Mrs. Ziesel, and requiring Dr. Ziesel to pay $5 per week to Mrs. Ziesel for his support, maintenance, and education, and leave was granted by the decree to either party to apply thereafter for such variance or modification thereof as changing circumstances might render equitable and just. In November, 1920, Mrs. Ziesel petitioned for a greater allowance, saying that Edward had attained the age of 16 years and was a "second year high school student"; that his father's income was from $10,000 to $15,000 per year; that she desired to send the boy to a preparatory school, which she named, where the board and tuition was $1,000 per year. It was on that, petition that the Court of Chancery made the order now under review, requiring Dr....