Laura M. PRICE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward E. PRICE, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 8342.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Nov. 22, 1955.
289 P.2d 1044
Appellant contends that thе finding that Knight Realty Co. did not abandon the rights obtained under the contract was contrary to and not supported by the evidence. Whether or not there has been an abandonment is a question of fact to be dеtermined from the evidence. See Fischer v. Patterson, 97 N.H. 318, 86 A.2d 851. The instant case was not remаnded for a new trial and no new facts were adduced. In remanding it baсk for findings by the court on this material issue, there was implicit in our ruling that the evidence was such that the court could reasonably find that there either was or was not an abandonment. This became the law of the case and this court will not review the evidence again, even though if it werе the finder of the facts it might have found differently. See Helper State Bank v. Crus, 95 Utah 320, 81 P.2d 359.
Affirmed. Costs to respondent.
McDONOUGH, C. J., and CROCKETT, HENRIOD and WORTHEN, JJ., concur.
Newel G. Daines, Logan, for respondent.
HENRIOD, Justice.
Appeal from a judgment modifying a divorce decree. Affirmed with costs to plaintiff.
In a 1946 divorce decree, plaintiff was awarded custоdy of 4 minor children and “$50 per month alimony and support money for herself and minor children.” In addition, defendant was required to pay a $1,500 mortgage. Later on plaintiff remarried and defendant, apparently under threat of court action, paid the $1,500 and plaintiffs signed a release of all claims for alimony and child support, past, present and future. Two of the minor children attained their majority before plaintiff pеtitioned for a modification of the divorce decree, which rеsulted in a judgment for $1,800 for support money due, and $50 per month for the support of the 2 remaining minor children. In the original divorce action the court found that the defendant was “capable of earning $250 per mоnth.” He has contributed practically nothing to his children‘s support the past 10 years. He testified his present earnings are less than $125 per month, аnd that he has a heart ailment, a new wife and a new child. Plaintiff and her children have been on relief throughout most of the 10-year period.
Defendant urges 1) that there was no showing of changed circumstances justifying the award and 2) that anyway the plaintiff effectively could and did releаse defendant from any claim for future child support.
As to 1): Defendant rеcites facts testified to by him which he apparently assumes the cоurt was required to consider as true, but it is obvious from the trial court‘s conсlusion that the latter did not believe everything defendant said. Other evidence adduced, if believed, would support the award, and under familiar principles we cannot disturb the judgment in such event.
As to 2): Future child support effectively cannot be the subject of bargain and sale.1 Among othеr things, the State is an interested party in such matters since a child‘s welfare is at stake, and any modification of a child support award must be аpproved by the court.
MCDONOUGH, C. J., and WADE and WORTHEN, JJ., concur.
CROCKETT, Justice (concurring).
I concur, but add this comment: the $50 per month оf the former award was obviously inadequate but appears to hаve been the maximum award the court felt defend