Stuart v. Stuart

Ohio Court of Appeals

Stuart v. Stuart

15 Ohio Law. Abs. 535, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1237

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 1933

DocketNo 2834

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Ohio Law. Abs. 535 (Stuart v. Stuart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stuart v. Stuart, 15 Ohio Law. Abs. 535, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1237 (Ohio Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By RICHARDS, J.

The parties have been husband and wife for more than 30 years. It will be observed that the trial court, although it found the plaintiff in the right and that she was entitled to a divorce, awarded her no alimony but held simply that she was entitled to the furniture which was already hers and to the undivided one-half of the real estate, the same already belonging to her. The real estate was worth perhaps from $5,000 to $6,000, which would seemingly leave a substantial value in the property for the husband and wife above the mortgage. The wife, having been found entitled to a divorce, should, have had some' allow[536]*536anee of alimony, as the primary duty of supporting the wife rests upon the husband. Under the facts as found by the court, the duty to allow alimony was mandatory, but the amount of it was within the judicial discretion of the trial court.

McGinnis v McGinnis, 9 Oh Ap, 81:

Coleman v Coleman, 37 Oh Ap, 474; (8 Abs 481).

The record discloses that the husband was out of employment and evidently had no source of income. These facts and all other facts in the case, including the source from which the real estate came, should be considered in fixing the alimony. It may well be, under the evidence in the record, that the allowance of alimony to be made in favor of the wife should be very small, but as we read the statute and the decisions of the courts, she is entitled to an allowance of some amount by way of alimony.

Reversed and remanded.

WILLIAMS, J, concurs.

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

OPINION

By RICHARDS, J.

The parties have been husband and wife for more than 30 years. It will be observed that the trial court, although it found the plaintiff in the right and that she was entitled to a divorce, awarded her no alimony but held simply that she was entitled to the furniture which was already hers and to the undivided one-half of the real estate, the same already belonging to her. The real estate was worth perhaps from $5,000 to $6,000, which would seemingly leave a substantial value in the property for the husband and wife above the mortgage. The wife, having been found entitled to a divorce, should, have had some' allow[536]*536anee of alimony, as the primary duty of supporting the wife rests upon the husband. Under the facts as found by the court, the duty to allow alimony was mandatory, but the amount of it was within the judicial discretion of the trial court.

McGinnis v McGinnis, 9 Oh Ap, 81:

Coleman v Coleman, 37 Oh Ap, 474; (8 Abs 481).

The record discloses that the husband was out of employment and evidently had no source of income. These facts and all other facts in the case, including the source from which the real estate came, should be considered in fixing the alimony. It may well be, under the evidence in the record, that the allowance of alimony to be made in favor of the wife should be very small, but as we read the statute and the decisions of the courts, she is entitled to an allowance of some amount by way of alimony.

Reversed and remanded.

WILLIAMS, J, concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Ohio Law. Abs. 535, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuart-v-stuart-ohioctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack