Wolfgram v. Wolfgram

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Wolfgram v. Wolfgram

204 N.W.2d 403, 295 Minn. 560, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1343

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 9, 1973

DocketNo. 43745

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 N.W.2d 403 (Wolfgram v. Wolfgram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolfgram v. Wolfgram, 204 N.W.2d 403, 295 Minn. 560, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1343 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant husband appeals from two orders, one granting plaintiff wife’s motion to hold defendant in contempt of court for deliberate violation of the terms of the divorce judgment and decree, and the other denying defendant’s motion that he be forgiven past-due alimony and that the decree be amended to release him from the obligation to pay alimony in the future.

We do not review the first order because defendant did not give timely notice of appeal. Rule 104.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

In reviewing the second and later order, from which a timely appeal was taken, we are bound by the rule that a trial judge has discretion in deciding whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to necessitate modifying the alimony provisions of the original decree, and we will not reverse a trial judge’s order granting or denying a motion to modify such a decree absent an abuse of that discretion. See, e. g., Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 186 N. W. 2d 678 (1971). The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s motion in this case.

Respondent is hereby allowed attorneys’ fees of $300.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant husband appeals from two orders, one granting plaintiff wife’s motion to hold defendant in contempt of court for deliberate violation of the terms of the divorce judgment and decree, and the other denying defendant’s motion that he be forgiven past-due alimony and that the decree be amended to release him from the obligation to pay alimony in the future.

We do not review the first order because defendant did not give timely notice of appeal. Rule 104.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

In reviewing the second and later order, from which a timely appeal was taken, we are bound by the rule that a trial judge has discretion in deciding whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to necessitate modifying the alimony provisions of the original decree, and we will not reverse a trial judge’s order granting or denying a motion to modify such a decree absent an abuse of that discretion. See, e. g., Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 186 N. W. 2d 678 (1971). The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s motion in this case.

Respondent is hereby allowed attorneys’ fees of $300.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 N.W.2d 403, 295 Minn. 560, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfgram-v-wolfgram-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack