Groussman v. Groussman

Full title: Arlene Groussman v. Albert Ronald Groussman

Court: Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department

Date published: Jun 19, 1967

428 P.2d 920 (Colo. 1967)

428 P.2d 920

Opinion

No. 21133.

Decided June 19, 1967.

Action in divorce. From a judgment of the trial court involving an allegedly unfavorable property settlement, ex-wife brings error.

Affirmed.

1. DIVORCE — Property Settlement — Abuse of Discretion — Merit. Contention of twenty-five year old ex-wife, who had been married only eleven months and to which union no children were born, that court abused it discretion as a matter of law in its failure to order a greater sum to her as a settlement of property rights, is without merit; actually, no abuse of discretion on part of trial court has been shown.

Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Joseph A. Barron, County Court Judge sitting in District Court.

Ed Conly, for plaintiff in error.

LeLand S. Huttner, Lionel Dunievitz, for defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE delivered the opinion of the Court.

We refer to plaintiff in error as the plaintiff, and to defendant in error as the defendant.

The plaintiff, a woman twenty-five years of age, after a marriage of eleven months duration to which union no children were born, obtained a decree of divorce from the defendant on grounds of cruelty. During pendency of the action she received temporary alimony of $150 per month which continued until $2400 had been paid up to the time of the hearing on her application for permanent alimony, property settlement, and attorney's fees. The final order of the trial court on this application directed delivery to her of title to an automobile, a gold watch, and an additional payment of $300, together with an award to her attorney of $800 as attorney's fees.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court in connection with these matters, she is here on writ of error seeking reversal on the ground that as a matter of law this court should find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in its failure to order a greater sum to her as a settlement of property rights.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The record and briefs of the attorneys have been read and oral argument has been had. Our conclusion is that no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court has been shown, and the judgment accordingly is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE SUTTON, MR. JUSTICE McWILLIAMS and MR. JUSTICE PRINGLE concur.