Heston v. Heston

Hawaii Supreme Court

Heston v. Heston

423 P.2d 437, 49 Haw. 521, 1967 Haw. LEXIS 90

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1967

DocketNo. 4502

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 423 P.2d 437 (Heston v. Heston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heston v. Heston, 423 P.2d 437, 49 Haw. 521, 1967 Haw. LEXIS 90 (haw 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant-wife was granted a divorce from appellee-husband by the trial court. From a total estate of $28,982.41, appellant was awarded a property settlement of $11,463.79. In addition, the court awarded appellant alimony amounting to $9,100.00 payable every two weeks at the rate of $175.00 per payment for a period of two years.

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether under all the facts in this case, the trial court erred in limiting the award of alimony to the appellant for a period of two years. Upon a review of the record, the briefs submitted, and the argument of counsel at the hearing before this court, we are of the opinion that this appeal is manifestly without merit. No abuse of discretion has been shown on the part of the trial judge in limiting the award of alimony to a period of two years. Tanguay v. Tanguay, 41 Haw. 345-348; Nobrega v. Nobrega, 14 Haw. 152. See also Richards v. Richards, 44 Haw. 491, 355 P.2d 188; Crow v. Crow, 49 Haw. 258, 414 P.2d 82.

Judgment is affirmed, and appellant’s request for attor[522]*522ney’s fees and costs is denied in the exercise of our discretion.

Jolm E. Parks, attorney for Libellant, Cross-Libellee, Appellant. Gene A. Trini, attorney for Libellee, Cross-Libellant, Appellee.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant-wife was granted a divorce from appellee-husband by the trial court. From a total estate of $28,982.41, appellant was awarded a property settlement of $11,463.79. In addition, the court awarded appellant alimony amounting to $9,100.00 payable every two weeks at the rate of $175.00 per payment for a period of two years.

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether under all the facts in this case, the trial court erred in limiting the award of alimony to the appellant for a period of two years. Upon a review of the record, the briefs submitted, and the argument of counsel at the hearing before this court, we are of the opinion that this appeal is manifestly without merit. No abuse of discretion has been shown on the part of the trial judge in limiting the award of alimony to a period of two years. Tanguay v. Tanguay, 41 Haw. 345-348; Nobrega v. Nobrega, 14 Haw. 152. See also Richards v. Richards, 44 Haw. 491, 355 P.2d 188; Crow v. Crow, 49 Haw. 258, 414 P.2d 82.

Judgment is affirmed, and appellant’s request for attor[522]*522ney’s fees and costs is denied in the exercise of our discretion.

Jolm E. Parks, attorney for Libellant, Cross-Libellee, Appellant. Gene A. Trini, attorney for Libellee, Cross-Libellant, Appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 P.2d 437, 49 Haw. 521, 1967 Haw. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heston-v-heston-haw-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack