Richard v. Richard

8 Citing cases

  1. Lonabaugh v. Lonabaugh

    46 Wyo. 23 (Wyo. 1933)   Cited 20 times
    In Lonabaugh v. Lonabaugh, 46 Wyo. 23, 22 P.2d 199, 201, a distinction was made between alimony as such and payments which are termed alimony but in reality constitute a property settlement.

    Duxstad v. Duxstad, 94 P. 463. The case of Richard v. Richard (Okla.) 286 P. 900, cited by counsel for defendant, can scarcely be said to be in point on the facts. We feel that a reasonable amount should be allowed.

  2. McCoy v. McCoy

    1967 OK 86 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 17 times
    In McCoy v. McCoy, 429 P.2d 999 (Okla. 1967) we held that ยง 1278 was inapplicable in cases where a divorce is granted to both parties who are equally wrong.

    "The trial court, under 12 O.S. 1961 ยง 1276[12-1276], may allow the wife a reasonable attorney's fee `considering the respective parties and the means and property of each.' What constitutes a reasonable fee is largely in the discretion of the trial court." In the Brannon case, following such statement and citing Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900, this court said: "* * * In determining the amount of a reasonable fee the ability of the husband to pay is one of the factors to be considered."

  3. Brown v. Brown

    365 P.2d 385 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    The property settlement agreement (termed a "Separation Agreement" by the parties) was made only after lengthy efforts on the part of plaintiff's attorney and Mr. Dunbar to determine the net worth of the husband, which consisted almost entirely of the stock and assets of the Curt Brown Drilling Company. There is evidence that the husband was less than co-operative in this regard. Defendant cites Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900, in support of the proposition that the husband's ability to pay is a controlling factor in determining the fee to be allowed the wife's attorney. However, the fact that the husband voluntarily agreed to pay his wife $119,000, and to set over to her a one-half interest in about twenty-five different oil or gas producing properties, is some evidence of his ability to pay.

  4. Mobley v. Mobley

    277 P.2d 662 (Okla. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    In view of the fact that defendant had heretofore paid plaintiff the sum of $300 for the use and benefit of plaintiff's attorneys, we are of the view that the order requiring an additional payment of $500 is excessive. In Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900, we held that the ability of the husband to pay is one of the controlling factors in the allowance of attorney's fee. The judgment of the trial court granting Gwendolyn S. Mobley a decree or divorce and giving her the custody of their minor children is affirmed.

  5. Brannon v. Brannon

    250 P.2d 447 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 7 times

    Under 12 O.S. 1951 ยง 1276[12-1276], the trial court may allow the wife a reasonable attorney's fee considering the respective parties and the means and property of each. What constitutes a reasonable fee is largely in the discretion of the court. In determining the amount of a reasonable fee the ability of the husband to pay is one of the factors to be considered. Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900. In discussing the fee the trial court said: "The court finds that $250 allowed heretofore is ample and reasonable and as much as the defendant is able to pay in this case."

  6. Watson v. Watson

    212 P.2d 667 (Okla. 1949)   Cited 4 times

    In determining the amount of attorney fee that should be allowed the wife in a case of this character, the court may and should take into consideration the financial ability of the husband to pay and should make such allowance as is reasonable and just under all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900. The application for allowance of an attorney fee to the wife in such case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, Banta v. Banta, 202 Okla. 86, 210 P.2d 346. No abuse of discretion is shown.

  7. Hornor v. Hornor

    26 P.2d 409 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court, in effect, found that there had been no such gift, and such finding is supported by the evidence. Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow attorney fee for her attorneys, citing Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900; Albert v. Albert, 120 Okla. 172, 251 P. 476; Stott v. Scott, 122 Okla. 266, 254 P. 722; and 19 C. J. 237. Defendant also cites a statement by this court in the case of Hornor v. Hornor, supra, as follows: "The defendant in this case was entitled to defend herself from the attack made upon her in the action by the plaintiff and for that purpose she is entitled to an attorney fee and suit money and she was entitled to maintenance pending the litigation."

  8. Bussey v. Bussey

    296 P. 401 (Okla. 1931)   Cited 19 times

    That, with the fee heretofore allowed by this court, in our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, is adequate, and no additional fee is allowed. Richard v. Richard, 142 Okla. 302, 286 P. 900. We approve and affirm that portion of the judgment vesting in the plaintiff the title to the 60 acres of land owned by her and known as her allotment and quieting the title thereto as against the claim of the defendant.