![]() ![]() ![]() The trial court's failure to hold a hearing on plaintiff's Rule 59 and 60(b) motions conflicts with our ruling in Jensen v.Without hearing, the court amended its order, raising the support payments to $20.00 weekly for one year, and thereafter, to $25.00 weekly. 60(b), claiming that the evidence did not support the court's finding of a change in defendant's financial circumstances. ![]() Plaintiff moved for relief from judgment pursuant to V.R.C.P.Where former husband filed a motion for modification of a support order and former wife filed a petition asking that former husband be found in wilful contempt of that order, since the evidence disclosed that former husband failed to obtain medical insurance for the parties' minor child or contribute one-half of the cost of medical and dental treatment for the child as he had agreed to do under the terms of a stipulation incorporated into the parties' original divorce decree, trial court which granted the modification erred in failing to make any finding relative to the insurance and medical payments.Where original 1980 divorce decree incorporated a stipulation of the parties wherein former husband agreed to pay $35.00 weekly for the support of their minor child and in 1982 former husband filed a motion for modification of the original support order, citing a substantial change in his financial circumstances, since the change of financial circumstances claimed by former husband was not intervening and unanticipated, but rather resulted from the fact that he had voluntarily quit his job in 1980 in order to spend more time with his girlfriend and did not work again until 1981, when he started his own business, and former husband did not claim that he was incapable of compliance with the original order because of fraud, impossibility of performance or unconscionable advantage on the part of former wife, trial court's order reducing the support payments was not proper.A court may modify an original divorce decree if the petitioner demonstrates a substantial change of circumstances since the time of the original decree.A change of financial circumstances resulting from a deliberate and voluntary act, absent a sufficient reason for the sacrificing of income, will not support either a modification of a divorce decree based on a stipulation of the parties or a finding of inability without fault to obey the order.The court ordered defendant to pay $15.00 weekly support and $10.00 a week on the arrearage until fully paid. The court further found that defendant was in arrearages in the amount of $1,470.00 based on the original support payments, but that he was not in contempt because he had an inability without fault to obey the original support order. Although defendant voluntarily left his employment in 1980, the court found that after unsuccessfully seeking employment out of state, defendant was now self-employed, at a reduced level of income, in a Brattleboro radiator repair business. After hearing both defendant's motion for modification and plaintiff's petition for contempt, the court reduced defendant's support payments based on a finding that his financial circumstances had changed. Plaintiff filed a petition for contempt, asking that defendant be found in willful contempt of the court's original order of June 1980. In June, 1982, defendant filed a motion for modification of the original support order, citing a substantial change in his financial circumstances.Supreme court will not set aside findings of fact unless, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and excluding the effects of modifying evidence, they are clearly erroneous.Findings of fact made under the rule of civil procedure governing findings by the trial court must state the facts essential to the disposition of the issues properly before the court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |