Davis v. DavisDavis v. Davis
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Ruland, Smith, Berman
In an action for dissolution of marriage initiated by Mary Ann Davis (Wife), Donald L. Davis (Husband) appeals from amended permаnent orders relative to child support, maintenance, division of property, and attorney fees. We affirm.
After 19 years the marriage of the parties was dissolved on December 7, 1973. Three children were born as issue of the marriage, and during the course of the proceedings on permanent orders, the parties stipulated that Husband would have custody of their 16-year-оld son and Wife would have custody of the two daughters, aged 12 and 11.
Following hearings held on three separate occasions, the trial court entered permanent orders. Subsequent thereto Husband employed new counsel. His motion for a new trial was granted, and after presentation of evidence, the court reinstated its original orders. Thereafter the court, on its оwn motion, amended the original orders on the basis that indebtedness against certain of the motor vehicles owned by the parties had not been properly considered, thereby giving Wife аn inequitable share of the assets.
By its original order, the court awarded the parties’ residence to Wife, directing Wife to pay the first mortgage and Husband the second mortgage on the residence. With the exception of the parties’ camp trailer and automobile insurance proceeds of $1,150, the remaining vehicles were awarded to Husband. In addition, the court ordered that: (1) Wife receive the furniture and fixtures in the parties’ residence; (2) each party receive other items of personal property either as designated by the cоurt, by agreement of the parties, or decision of a third party; (3) Husband receive most of the parties’ jointly owned stock and his stock in his business; (4)
The court amended the original order to the extent that it directed the immediate sale of four of the parties’ motor vehicles with the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. The residence was ordered held by the parties as tenants in common and sold when all of the children reаched majority or had been emancipated, Wife remarried, or the court determined it to be in the best interest of the children that the house be sold. Upon sale thereof, Wife is to receive credits for all payments of principal after the effective date of the original order, and the remaining proceeds are to be divided equally. Additional time was аlso granted to Husband to pay Wife‘s attorney fees.
In summary, the record amply reflects that the trial court devoted substantial time, effort, and diligence to resolving the issues in this case.
I. Division of Property, Child Support, and Attorney Fees
The triаl court‘s orders relative to division of property, child support, maintenance, and attorney fees are interrelated in most cases and generally must be reviewed together. See Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006; Krall v. Krall, 31 Colo.App. 538, 504 P.2d 681. In the present case, maintenance awarded was nominal and that issue is treated separately.
On this appeal, Husband first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a disproportionate amount of the marital assets to Wife and ordering Husband to assume a disproportionate amount of the parties’ liabilities. Husband also contends that the award of child support was excessive. Finally, Husband asserts that the trial court‘s findings were insufficient to meet the requirements of
Division of property and the award of child support are subjects peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and its decision relative thereto will not be disturbed upon review except for clear abuse of that discretion. Liggett v. Liggett, 152 Colo. 110, 380 P.2d 673; Ferguson v. Ferguson, 32 Colo.App. 145, 507 P.2d 1110. Here, the court‘s findings relative to division of property reflect consideration of (a) the contributions of each spouse, (b) value of the property set apart to each spouse, and (c) the economic circumstances of each spouse. See
Although the trial court did not place a dollar value on the contributions of each party to the acquisition of the marital estate, contrary to Husband‘s contention here such specific findings are not a prerequisite to the validity of property division orders. See Thompson v. Thompson, 30 Colo.App. 57, 489 P.2d 1062. In addition, as regards a personal injury award rеceived by Wife and used to make home improvements, to purchase an automobile and stocks, and to invest in Husband‘s business, we find no error in the determination that such award should be treatеd as a contribution toward acquisition of the marital estate. See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 115 Colo. 505, 176 P.2d 363. Even assuming the assets awarded to Wife exceeded those awarded Husband when consideration is given to the indebtedness Husbаnd is obligated to pay, equitable division of property does not necessarily require an equal division. See Thompson v. Thompson, supra. Finally, while the trial court did not place a value on each of the assets subject to division, the court found and Husband concedes, in effect, that the two major assets in gross value were the family residence and the automobiles. The trial court made a speсific finding as to the value of the residence and accepted Husband‘s estimate as to the value of the
In support of its order awarding сhild support, the court made findings relative to Wife‘s income and expenses, and based thereon specifically found a need for child support in the amount awarded. These findings arе sufficient to comply with the requirements of
Relative to Husband‘s contention that the child support award is excessive, by
Husband also contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay Wife attorney fees in the amount of $800. After deducting prior payments, Wife had incurred attorney fees оf $1,340 as of the date the new trial was completed. Husband‘s attorney stipulated to the reasonableness of these fees. Based upon the financial circumstances of eaсh of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion in the court‘s order on this issue and therefore will not disturb the award. Krall v. Krall, supra.
II. Maintenance
Husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding Wife maintenance in the nominаl amount of $1 per year as violative of
Section
“(a) Lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and
(b) Is unable to support himself through appropriate employment . . . .”
Husband contends that since Wife is presently employed at a wage which he asserts is sufficient to support her, an award of maintenance in any amount was improper.
Although Wife was employed, there was considerable testimony relative to an ankle disability which caused her some discomfort in her present employment. Based on conflicting testimony, the trial court found as supportive of its award of maintenance that Wife‘s present and future employment status was unstable. This finding was supported by the evidence and may not be disturbed on review. Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662.
We hold that where, as here, the court determines that a spouse may not be able to support herself on a permanent basis
Judgment affirmed.
SMITH and BERMAN, JJ., concur.