Furniss v. Furniss

YORK, P. J.

The interlocutory decree of divorce entered herein on December 17, 1923, ordered defendant husband to pay $20 per week to plaintiff wife for her support and maintenance. By an order entered July 18, 1927, such payment was reduced to $12 per week. Thereafter, a contempt proceeding brought by plaintiff against defendant was discharged, and on August 7, 1944, upon hearing of an order to show cause

re

modification, the previous order was modified “to provide that defendant shall pay the sum of $10.00 per week for the support of plaintiff. ’ ’

The instant appeal is prosecuted by defendant from an order dated February 27, 1945, by which the trial court refused to modify the order of August 7, 1944, and reduce the alimony award; appellant urging that “the evidence establishes that the court abused its sound discretion” in its refusal to modify such order.

The affidavit of appellant made in support of his motion to reduce the award, shows net weekly earnings of $51.69, and expenditures of $96.84 per week, the latter including, in addition to the $10 payment of alimony, $12 medical expense for his present wife and $9.10 payment on an automobile; and avers that “since said order of August 7, 1944, defendant’s wife has received a medical discharge from the Women’s Army Corps, necessitating many visits to the doctor, which defendant is obligated to pay; that defendant has been forced to purchase an automobile and make the payments thereon; that it is impossible for defendant to meet the expenditures which he is obliged to take care of and continue to pay the plaintiff $10.00 per week. ’ ’

Appellant testified that he lived in Van Nuys and worked in Pasadena and “had to buy another” automobile; that while his wife was in the service “she was hit by an automobile and it left her permanently affected'and she was discharged with 70% permanent disability . . . she has to continually visit the doctor”; that she had attempted to obtain medical care

[140]

from the Veteran’s Administration at Sawtelle, but “they Avere unable to take her . . . she is unable to drive a ear . . . and they recommended that she continue with her present physician.” On cross-examination, appellant testified that his wife owned the property in which they lived and that she purchased it with money she inherited.