Christensen v. Christensen

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Christensen v. Christensen

45 A.2d 677, 137 N.J. Eq. 538, 1946 N.J. LEXIS 397

DecidedJanuary 31, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.2d 677 (Christensen v. Christensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christensen v. Christensen, 45 A.2d 677, 137 N.J. Eq. 538, 1946 N.J. LEXIS 397 (N.J. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Heretofore the Court of Chancery awarded the wife, the present appellant, alimony in the amount of $175 per week, which award was affirmed in this court. Christensen v. Christensen, 133 N. J. Eq. 347.

Thereafter Mrs. Christensen filed a petition in the Court of Chancery alleging that her ordinary living expenses had greatly increased since the date of entry of the original award, that she is obliged to pay federal income tax on the amount of alimony received and, therefore, the amount awarded for her support and maintenance is inadequate. She prayed therein that the award of alimony he revised and modified to meet these added costs. The matter being duly heard an order was entered in the Court of Chancery increasing the amount of alimony to $250 per week.

Mrs. Christensen-appeals from this order, contending that the learned Advisory Master committed error in advising an increase of $75 per week, whereas he should have advised an increase of $185 per week.

*539 We have carefully considered the matter and concur in the result reached below.

The order appealed is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Colie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dill, Freund, McGeehan, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

Heretofore the Court of Chancery awarded the wife, the present appellant, alimony in the amount of $175 per week, which award was affirmed in this court. Christensen v. Christensen, 133 N. J. Eq. 347.

Thereafter Mrs. Christensen filed a petition in the Court of Chancery alleging that her ordinary living expenses had greatly increased since the date of entry of the original award, that she is obliged to pay federal income tax on the amount of alimony received and, therefore, the amount awarded for her support and maintenance is inadequate. She prayed therein that the award of alimony he revised and modified to meet these added costs. The matter being duly heard an order was entered in the Court of Chancery increasing the amount of alimony to $250 per week.

Mrs. Christensen-appeals from this order, contending that the learned Advisory Master committed error in advising an increase of $75 per week, whereas he should have advised an increase of $185 per week.

*539 We have carefully considered the matter and concur in the result reached below.

The order appealed is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Colie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dill, Freund, McGeehan, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.2d 677, 137 N.J. Eq. 538, 1946 N.J. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christensen-v-christensen-nj-1946.