Sloan v. Sloan

426 P.2d 780, 77 N.M. 632
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 1967
Docket8246
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 426 P.2d 780 (Sloan v. Sloan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sloan v. Sloan, 426 P.2d 780, 77 N.M. 632 (N.M. 1967).

Opinion

OPINION

CARMODY, Justice.

The amount awarded to the wife as permanent alimony is the only issue in this appeal. The trial court ordered the husband to pay $10,000.00 per year, and the wife appeals, claiming such amount is insufficient to support her in the manner to which she has become accustomed and that the husband can well afford a larger amount.

The wife argues that the trial court, in arriving at the amount of alimony, should not have considered her possible earning capacity or certain annuity possibilities, and that it also erred in failing to increase the alimony to require the husband to pay the amount of the insurance premiums annually accruing on policies that were awarded to the wife in the property agreement.

It would be of little benefit to the parties, and of no value to the bar, to even summarize the evidence in this case, for, as we said in Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 1962, 70.N.M. 11) 369 P.2d 398, as to the power to grant alimony, “ * * * on appeal this court examines the evidence only to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in fixing an amount which was contrary to all reason. * * *” We have carefully reviewed the transcript and cannot say that the award of alimony amounted to an abuse of discretion. We decline to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, being satisfied that the award is supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law. There is no fixed rule by which the amount of permanent alimony can be determined, since each case must be decided upon its own relevant facts, in the light of what is fair and reasonable.

The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

COMPTON, J., and WOOD, J., Court of Appeals, concur.

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

Related

Cherpelis v. Cherpelis
914 P.2d 637 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1996)
Chrane v. Chrane
649 P.2d 1384 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1982)
Brister v. Brister
594 P.2d 1167 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1979)
Spingola v. Spingola
580 P.2d 958 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1978)
Hayner v. Hayner
571 P.2d 407 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1977)
Seymour v. Seymour
557 P.2d 1101 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1976)
Schaab v. Schaab
531 P.2d 954 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1974)
Michelson v. Michelson
520 P.2d 263 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1974)
Gallemore v. Gallemore
432 P.2d 399 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
426 P.2d 780, 77 N.M. 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloan-v-sloan-nm-1967.