Richardson v. Richardson

207 F.2d 133, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 76, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided July 30, 1953·No. 11760·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court adjudged appellant in contempt for default in payment of alimony to appellee. It did so without taking oral testimony, although the parties had filed conflicting affidavits concerning the basic issue whether default was voluntary and therefore contemptuous. In our opinion the affidavits do not provide a basis for resolution of this issue. Cf. Richardson v. Richardson, 92 U.S.App.D.C.-, 201 F.2d 211. Whether or not appellant has been guilty of contempt, the court may in its discretion reduce the amount of alimony if it finds that the amount has become excessive because of appellant’s changed financial condition.

Reversed.

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

Richardson v. Richardson, 207 F.2d 133, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 76, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

207 F.2d 133 (Richardson v. Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alibrando v. Alibrando
375 A.2d 9 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)
John G. Straub v. Mrs. Josephine T. Straub
229 F.2d 505 (D.C. Circuit, 1955)