Beavers v. Beavers

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Beavers v. Beavers

177 A.2d 892, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 250

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 1962

Docket2890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 A.2d 892 (Beavers v. Beavers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beavers v. Beavers, 177 A.2d 892, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 250 (D.C. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by a wife from an order requiring her husband to pay her a small weekly amount for her support and awarding custody of their minor child to the husband.

The principal argument here is that the support award was a mere “token” amount and should have been larger. The record fails to persuade us that this argument has merit.

The second point is that the tria] judge was prejudiced against appellant and should have disqualified himself “at some time during the proceedings.” The record shows that after hearing all the testimony the trial judge announced he did not believe appellant and that he had the impression appellant was neither a good woman nor a good mother. Such a finding did not establish bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge; otherwise, every time a trial judge found a litigant unworthy of belief or lacking in good character he would have to disqualify himself and there would be no end to the litigation. A finding adverse to a litigant is not proof that the finding was influenced by prejudice.

Appellant’s motion for counsel fees is denied without prejudice to making the same application to the trial court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by a wife from an order requiring her husband to pay her a small weekly amount for her support and awarding custody of their minor child to the husband.

The principal argument here is that the support award was a mere “token” amount and should have been larger. The record fails to persuade us that this argument has merit.

The second point is that the tria] judge was prejudiced against appellant and should have disqualified himself “at some time during the proceedings.” The record shows that after hearing all the testimony the trial judge announced he did not believe appellant and that he had the impression appellant was neither a good woman nor a good mother. Such a finding did not establish bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge; otherwise, every time a trial judge found a litigant unworthy of belief or lacking in good character he would have to disqualify himself and there would be no end to the litigation. A finding adverse to a litigant is not proof that the finding was influenced by prejudice.

Appellant’s motion for counsel fees is denied without prejudice to making the same application to the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.2d 892, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beavers-v-beavers-dc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack