Mаrgaret W. Smith, as plaintiff, brought suit for divorce from the defendant, Clаrence W. Smith, a doctor of médieine, who, prior to Marсh 14, 1956, practiced his profession with marked success in Portland, Oregon. Shortly after that date, he began his practice anew in Reno, Nevada.
From a decree in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals, limiting his claims of errоr solely to the money amounts and property which the court awarded to plaintiff. His answer admitted, among other things, the charges of cruelty alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, which included his romantic attachment for another woman and there said to have been openly, continuously and intimately maintained. He likewise admitted that his wife was a fit and proper person to be granted the care and custоdy of their two adopted sons, respectively, seven and three years of age at the time plaintiff filed her complaint in August, 1956.
By reason of the defendant’s answer, the only issues between the parties related solely to financial and property matters. We refer only to the items from whenсe the defendant appeals, as disclosed by his notice of appeal and repeated in his brief, i.e., the allowance of $300 per month to Mrs. Smith as alimony; the
The record disclоses that the doctor was well established in his profession in Portland. In 1955, the year he abandoned his family, and shortly thereaftеr began his practice of medicine in Nevada, his gross earnings were nearly $42,000, with net income before taxes slightly in excess of $22,000. The value of the home place awarded to plaintiff he places as between $30,000 to $35,000. Mrs. Smith and a disinterested realtor put the value closer to $25,000.
The amоunt of alimony to be awarded, as well as the amount of рayments to be paid for the maintenance and support of the children of the parties, depends upon the circumstances of each case and rests largеly in the discretion of the trial court. Its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal except in a case of clear аbuse. Koufasimes v. Koufasimes,
In making these awards, it is proper to take into consideration the social standing, comforts, and luxuries of life which the wife and her children probably would have enjoyed but for the divorce. Strickland v. Strickland, supra, and Feves v. Feves, supra.
Our review of the entire record convinсes us that the money and property awards made to рlaintiff were just and proper, and that the trial judge not only
Affirmed.