DocketNumber: No. 32095.
Citation Numbers: 166 P.2d 415, 196 Okla. 520, 1946 OK 65, 1946 Okla. LEXIS 410
Judges: Gibson, Hurst, Riley, Welch, Davison, Arnold
Filed Date: 2/26/1946
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
This is an action commenced by Mildred P. Bowring, hereinafter called plaintiff, against Raymond H. Bowring for divorce, alimony, *Page 521 and custody of the minor children. At the conclusion of all the evidence the trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff for divorce but granted custody of the children to the defendant and entered judgment for $300 for alimony payable $15 weekly.
Plaintiff has appealed from the order allowing alimony and from the order granting custody.
The evidence discloses, without substantial conflict, that the parties were married on January 10, 1931. Of this marriage four children were born. Their ages at the date of the trial on the 17th day of August, 1944, were 12, 10, 6, and 4. All of the children were girls with the exception of one boy, age 10. On September 28, 1937, the defendant sustained a serious and permanent injury. At the date of the trial he was employed by Douglas Aircraft at Oklahoma City. The plaintiff has been qualified to teach and had taught school, but at the date of the trial was also employed as a laborer with Douglas Aircraft. The parties owned a small four-room dwelling located on six town lots in the town of Blanchard, Okla. It is agreed that its value is approximately $1,000. It is encumbered with a mortgage which is being paid out by the month at approximately the sum of $15. The mortgage is in the neighborhood of $375. In addition to this there is an indebtedness of approximately $300 owed by the plaintiff, part of which is evidenced by a lien filed to the extent of $113 for labor and material used in improving the dwelling. The household furnishings are of the approximate value of $500.
The trial court ordered the parties to pay their own witness fees and attorney fees, otherwise the costs to be paid by the defendant.
It is first argued that the court erred in granting the custody of the children to the defendant. Although children of tender years are ordinarily placed in the custody of the mother, this question should be determined from all the facts and circumstances. In the determination of custody of minor children in a divorce action the best interest of the children should be the paramount consideration of the court, and where it does not appear that the trial court has abused its discretion this court will not reverse the order of the trial court. Gilcrease v. Gilcrease,
It is next argued that the court erred as a mattter of law in awarding alimony of $300 in the case at bar without dividing the jointly acquired property as provided by 12 O.S. 1941 § 1278[
In making the award and division of property the court should take into consideration the financial ability of the parties, their station in life, custody and maintenance of children, and the conduct of the parties. Francis v. Francis, supra; Galutia v. Galutia,
It has been determined that before a judgment in a case awarding alimony will be reversed it must clearly appear that the court abused its discretion. Mathews v. Mathews, Miller v. Miller, Francis v. Francis, supra.
We are of the opinion, and hold, that the order and judgment of the trial court is not clearly against the weight of the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
GIBSON, C. J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, WELCH, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
Thompson v. Thompson , 76 O.B.A.J. 384 ( 2004 )
Smith v. Smith , 206 Okla. 206 ( 1952 )
Eby v. Eby , 1959 Okla. LEXIS 537 ( 1959 )
Martin v. Martin , 206 Okla. 35 ( 1952 )
George F. Collins, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 388 F.2d 353 ( 1968 )
Reed v. Reed , 1959 Okla. LEXIS 412 ( 1959 )
Collins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1968 Okla. LEXIS 475 ( 1968 )
Shook v. Shook , 1960 Okla. LEXIS 371 ( 1960 )
Wills v. Wills , 1960 Okla. LEXIS 272 ( 1960 )
LeCrone v. LeCrone , 1979 Okla. LEXIS 231 ( 1979 )
Perry v. Perry , 408 P.2d 285 ( 1965 )
Nowlin v. Nowlin , 551 P.2d 1177 ( 1976 )
Davis v. Davis , 1960 Okla. LEXIS 449 ( 1960 )