Forespring v. Forespring

Washington Supreme Court

Forespring v. Forespring

436 P.2d 784, 73 Wash. 2d 128, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 605

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1968

DocketNo. 39633

StatusPublished

This text of 436 P.2d 784 (Forespring v. Forespring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forespring v. Forespring, 436 P.2d 784, 73 Wash. 2d 128, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 605 (Wash. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to increase the child support provisions ($50 a month for each of three children) provided in a divorce decree entered January 25, 1960.

In Lambert v. Lambert, 66 Wn.2d 503, 508, 403 P.2d 664 (1965), we said:

It is well settled in this jurisdiction, as in others, that a decree granting alimony or support can be modified only upon a showing of a substantial and material change in the condition and circumstances of the parties, occurring since the entry of the decree, relative to the factors of (1) the necessities of the divorced wife and children, and (2) the practical and realistic ability of the ex-husband to meet the obligations so imposed. Bartow v. Bartow, 12 Wn.2d 408, 121 P.2d 962 (1942); Gordon v. Gordon, 44 Wn.2d 222, 266 P.2d 786 (1954); Hanson v. Hanson, 47 Wn.2d 439, 287 P.2d 879 (1955); 89 A.L.R.2d 11.

The burden of demonstrating the required change of circumstances, rests upon the party petitioning for the [129]*129modification. Corson v. Corson, 46 Wn.2d 611, 283 P.2d 673 (1955). And, determination of the question whether, under the evidence presented, there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances which will authorize and justify a modification in the alimony and support payments is addressed to, and rests within, the sound judgment and discretion of the trial judge, whose decision thereupon will not be reversed on appeal absent error or abuse of discretion. Wages v. Wages, 39 Wn.2d 74, 234 P.2d 497 (1951); Gordon v. Gordon, supra; Hanson v. Hanson, supra.

The trial court was called upon to deal with a marginal situation, i.e., a man, a cook, with a varying gross income not in excess of $7,800 a year (with a wife and one child¹), already paying $1,800 a year for the support of his own children. The court was required to balance the needs of his present family against the needs of his three children (a daughter, 18,² attending college away from home; a son, 19,2 attending vocational school; and a son, 10,2 in the primary grades). The emphasis seems to have been on the educational needs of the girl and the older boy. Conceivably some additional money might have been squeezed out for one or both of those children, but under the circumstances we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the child support provisions of the 1960 decree.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to increase the child support provisions ($50 a month for each of three children) provided in a divorce decree entered January 25, 1960.

In Lambert v. Lambert, 66 Wn.2d 503, 508, 403 P.2d 664 (1965), we said:

It is well settled in this jurisdiction, as in others, that a decree granting alimony or support can be modified only upon a showing of a substantial and material change in the condition and circumstances of the parties, occurring since the entry of the decree, relative to the factors of (1) the necessities of the divorced wife and children, and (2) the practical and realistic ability of the ex-husband to meet the obligations so imposed. Bartow v. Bartow, 12 Wn.2d 408, 121 P.2d 962 (1942); Gordon v. Gordon, 44 Wn.2d 222, 266 P.2d 786 (1954); Hanson v. Hanson, 47 Wn.2d 439, 287 P.2d 879 (1955); 89 A.L.R.2d 11.

The burden of demonstrating the required change of circumstances, rests upon the party petitioning for the [129]*129modification. Corson v. Corson, 46 Wn.2d 611, 283 P.2d 673 (1955). And, determination of the question whether, under the evidence presented, there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances which will authorize and justify a modification in the alimony and support payments is addressed to, and rests within, the sound judgment and discretion of the trial judge, whose decision thereupon will not be reversed on appeal absent error or abuse of discretion. Wages v. Wages, 39 Wn.2d 74, 234 P.2d 497 (1951); Gordon v. Gordon, supra; Hanson v. Hanson, supra.

The trial court was called upon to deal with a marginal situation, i.e., a man, a cook, with a varying gross income not in excess of $7,800 a year (with a wife and one child¹), already paying $1,800 a year for the support of his own children. The court was required to balance the needs of his present family against the needs of his three children (a daughter, 18,² attending college away from home; a son, 19,2 attending vocational school; and a son, 10,2 in the primary grades). The emphasis seems to have been on the educational needs of the girl and the older boy. Conceivably some additional money might have been squeezed out for one or both of those children, but under the circumstances we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the child support provisions of the 1960 decree.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 P.2d 784, 73 Wash. 2d 128, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forespring-v-forespring-wash-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack