Cahill v. Cahill

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Cahill v. Cahill

402 A.2d 410, 1979 D.C. App. LEXIS 370

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1979

DocketNo. 13578

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 402 A.2d 410 (Cahill v. Cahill) 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

Cahill v. Cahill, 402 A.2d 410, 1979 D.C. App. LEXIS 370 (D.C. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This was an action brought by the husband for absolute divorce on the ground of six months’ voluntary separation. A counterclaim was filed by Mrs. Cahill seeking child support, alimony and judgment for arrearages due under a child support order entered in 1967 in Virginia. They have three children, the oldest of whom fairly recently began residing with the father.

The trial court granted the divorce. It denied alimony and awarded $350 per month to the wife for support of the two children in her custody and $1,000 counsel fees to the wife’s lawyer. She contends the trial court erred (a) in failing to award alimony, (b) in failing to award a larger monthly child support payment, and (c) in failing to award a larger sum for attorney’s fees.¹

Appellant (wife) contends at the outset that the trial court erred in failing to make a single finding of fact with respect to the husband’s income or ability to pay. Our review of the record discloses appellant is correct in this assertion and this, of course, prevents an intelligent review by the court in this case. A remand of the case is consequently required. Mumma v. Mumma, D.C. App., 280 A.2d 73 (1971); see also Wood v. Wood, D.C.App., 360 A.2d 488 (1976). Upon remand the trial court should explore and make findings on the income of the husband and his ability to pay, as well as on [411]*411the needs of all members of the family for whom financial assistance is being sought.²

Remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM:

This was an action brought by the husband for absolute divorce on the ground of six months’ voluntary separation. A counterclaim was filed by Mrs. Cahill seeking child support, alimony and judgment for arrearages due under a child support order entered in 1967 in Virginia. They have three children, the oldest of whom fairly recently began residing with the father.

The trial court granted the divorce. It denied alimony and awarded $350 per month to the wife for support of the two children in her custody and $1,000 counsel fees to the wife’s lawyer. She contends the trial court erred (a) in failing to award alimony, (b) in failing to award a larger monthly child support payment, and (c) in failing to award a larger sum for attorney’s fees.¹

Appellant (wife) contends at the outset that the trial court erred in failing to make a single finding of fact with respect to the husband’s income or ability to pay. Our review of the record discloses appellant is correct in this assertion and this, of course, prevents an intelligent review by the court in this case. A remand of the case is consequently required. Mumma v. Mumma, D.C. App., 280 A.2d 73 (1971); see also Wood v. Wood, D.C.App., 360 A.2d 488 (1976). Upon remand the trial court should explore and make findings on the income of the husband and his ability to pay, as well as on [411]*411the needs of all members of the family for whom financial assistance is being sought.²

Remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 A.2d 410, 1979 D.C. App. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahill-v-cahill-dc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack