556 P.2d 1267 | Utah | 1976
This is an action for divorce originated by plaintiff, Margaret Reeves, against defendant, Ray Willis Reeves. The State Division of Family Services (herein Family Services) entered an appearance as a party plaintiff,
The Reeves were married in August, 1974. In October of that year, they separated and in December, 1974, plaintiff commenced this action for divorce. In June, 1975, the child was born. Beginning in January, 1975, plaintiff had begun receiving public assistance, which has amounted to $2,418. In July, 1975, plaintiff executed an agreement and assignment subrogating Family Services to her rights to support from defendant.
In August, 1975, defendant was informed of the fact that his wife and child were receiving public assistance. He made one payment of $37.50 to the State, but failed to make any payments thereafter. In Jan
No issue is raised here concerning the court’s award of reimbursement for the support of the child. Appellant Family Services sought that judgment and the defendant does not question his responsibility to support his child, nor does he contest the propriety of the judgment against him for reimbursement for that support.
In that regard we observe that there is a definite distinction between the issue in controversy here, where the State has attempted to intervene in a divorce action to obtain reimbursement for support of a wife, prior to any trial or adjudication therein as to whether she is entitled to alimony or support money for herself, as contrasted to the State seeking reimbursement for support already furnished to children. The children are unconditionally entitled to support from their parents;
But the entitlement of the wife (or either spouse for that matter) to have her husband provide her alimony or support in the divorce proceeding may well depend on what develops, what evidence may be adduced and what the trial court decides in that proceeding.
Inasmuch as the right of the wife to support or alimony from her husband has not yet been determined in this divorce action, it is thus conjectural. We therefore agree with the ruling of the trial court that Family Services has shown no proper foundation to base a judgment against defendant for reimbursement for support of plaintiff Margaret Reeves prior to an adjudication on that issue.
Affirmed. No costs awarded.
. See See. 78-45-9, U.O.A.1953; but see what appears to be a preferable procedure of filing a separate action for reimbursement. State Division of Family Services, et al. v. Clark, et al., 554 P.2d 1310 (Utah 1976).
. Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 548 P.2d 238 (Utah 1976).
. See See. 78-45-8, U.O.A.1953, as to duty of .the father and See. 78-45-4 as to duty of the mother.
. See Barrett v. Barrett, 44 Ariz. 509, 39 P.2d 621; Rees v. Archibald, 6 Utah 2d 264, 311 P.2d 788.