*1 GALE GALE No. Decided June P. 2d *2 S., application Divorce, to 27 sec. fees See C. J. 322. Counsel for 576; alimony. Jur., Separation, 15 sec. crease 17 Am. Divorce and L. R. 2d A. 1280. Shirley Jones, Jr., City, P. Salt Lake McCullough, Boyce McCullough, City, & Lake' Salt respondent.
CROCKETT, Justice. legal controlling principle in this that a di- case is vorce be al- decree not modified unless it is proved leged, court the trial finds that upon circumstances gone which it under- was based have change.1 a substantial May 29, awarded a of property gave A approved settlement was which her family (being purchased contract), home certain
personal property custody of four minor children Chafee, 261, 76; Osmus, 63 Utah Osmus v. 1Chaffee P. Utah required to support the defendant was for whose totaling each, . month pro- Eighteen later, plaintiff the instant months filed by ceeding, seeking modify alleging support the “needs money “the defendant children have increased” and that to state his financial condition” but fails bettered hearing, particular After thereto. findings language made above the trial court similar quoted increased to and ordered totaling ap- per child, $140, order defendant from which peals.
Review the evidence taken at the shows that although ill at the time *3 temporarily hospitalized and was off his had been earning job, capa- the award was based on then his job. plaintiff city on that so testified and the decree reads: * * * employment “At such time as the defendant resumes he * * pay plaintiff per month for each
shall child $25.00 certainty permit The record shows with not to of mis- understanding employed that is now on the job, company, same the same bus driver with Pacific Greyhound Lines, divorce; as he was at the time of the mile, per that rate of his and other 7*4$ employment same, conditions of his are the so that change has been no substantial in his income. For the period prior average twelve months to the his monthly expenses and after deductions was average compared as with an months since $329.05 indicated, $309.28; as this shows no increase actually a But even if but decrease. this variation were way, hardly justify any that much the other it would modi- fication decree. of the they get older. needs increase as that children’s
It is true except age ranged 12. But in from to These children in the mean- they older that had become months the fact showing any needs. added This there is no evidence time age in is not alone such substantial advance short of the warrant modification in circumstances as would decree. plaintiff fully question sup- but what cannot
There is no month, port that needs the the children on she $100 important That, however, only one of a number making in an award for their factors to be considered support. is cut to fit beds it seldom When one blanket two can do will them The best that the court usu- cover both. ally seems is to make such division income as most reasonable, equitable to fair and all concerned indulging hope done circumstances. This is often up way. slack be made some That other is what appears to have been done instant case. evidence plaintiff employed that the shows herself been decree, making and that at the time of the she per month. It further shows that the defendant had $170 payments decree, yet request made all his under the no negotiations purpose made or undertaken with him obtaining adjustment prior an to the initia- proceeding. considerations, on tion of this Based these latter trial attorney’s court refused to award the an affirmed, In this fee. the order is but as to support money per from child to *4 child, annulled and originally the decree as entered is reinstated.
Costs to McDONOUGH, WADE, JJ., HENRIOD and concur. WOLFE, (dissenting). Chief Justice evidence, ages I dissent. In of all view children, years four and the fact that two expired now entered, I think that original decree was require, fair- circumstances shown a Par- change in of the decree. equity, the terms ness and original ticularly think this true because do I — less inequitable allotment made an $100, to of the defendant’s than one-third years old, suport are two of. whom four years old. are other two CAB, Inc. al. et al. v et BLUE
GIBBS July Decided No. 7710.