Richardson v. Richardson

207 F.2d 133, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 76, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJuly 30, 1953
Docket11760
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 F.2d 133 (Richardson v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 F.2d 133, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 76, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-richardson-cadc-1953.