Vance v. Vance

212 A.2d 532, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 226
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 2, 1965
Docket3711
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 212 A.2d 532 (Vance v. Vance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vance v. Vance, 212 A.2d 532, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 226 (D.C. 1965).

Opinion

CAYTON, Judge.

An action for separate maintenance was filed pursuant to D.C.Code 1961, § 16-415, by appellee wife, resulting in an order awarding her $35 per week as maintenance for herself and a $350 counsel fee. Her husband has appealed.

Appellant’s primary claim here is that thé award was excessive. In support of his argument, he points to certain uncontradict-ed statements, reflected in the record, that his current net income approximates only $50 per week.

His argument has an element of persuasiveness; but, as we recently said in Smith v. Smith, D.C.App., 210 A.2d 831 (1965), it “would be more effective if it were substantiated by adequate records.”1 As we pointed out in that decision, “[t]he trial court was not bound to accept the husband’s testimony at face value, and in the absence of supporting data may have concluded that his testimony was slanted in his favor.” We conclude that appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion such as would warrant disturbing the finding below. We note also that appellant may in the future apply to the trial court, on a proper showing, for a modification of its order.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Grasty v. Grasty
302 A.2d 218 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1973)
Green v. Green
217 A.2d 658 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1966)
Truslow v. Truslow
212 A.2d 763 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.2d 532, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vance-v-vance-dc-1965.