Case Title: Allison v. Allison

Citation: 372 P.2d 946

Docket Number: 20218, 20229

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1962-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
372 P.2d 946 (1962) Alta J. ALLISON, Plaintiff in Error, v. William J. ALLISON, Defendant in Error. Barbara Jean FREEMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Dalton FREEMAN, Defendant in Error. Nos. 20218, 20229. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. July 2, 1962. Samuel Berman, Denver, for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. DAY, Chief Justice. The writs of error before us, although directed to separate judgments entered by the trial court in separate cases, present a single question of law, and we have permitted the matter to be presented in one brief by counsel representing both plaintiffs in error. Plaintiffs in error Allison and Freeman, in separate actions, were each granted final decrees of divorce, which decrees contained the following order: Thereafter, when both Mr. Allison and Mr. Freeman, to whom we will refer as defendants, defaulted in their payments, citations for contempt of court were issued against both, at separate times, and on separate dates. In both cases the defendants exhibited to the trial court papers indicating that they had each been given a discharge in bankruptcy. The amount of the attorney fees directed under the court order were listed among the debts in both bankruptcy proceedings. The court thereupon exonerated both defendants of contempt, ruled that the discharge in bankruptcy was controlling, and dismissed the contempt citation, to which judgments and orders the plaintiffs in error direct these writs of error. The sole question to be determined is whether an order for payment of counsel fees decreed by the court to a wife in a divorce action is a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. The precise question is one of first impression in Colorado. However, the point has been litigated in several states having statutes almost identical to 1960 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. '53, 46-1-5, which provides: In all the cases examined it was held that an allowance for counsel fees, being for the benefit of the wife to put her in a position to litigate on the same footing as the husband, is made on the same basis as alimony or other forms of support by the husband to the wife. Colorado adheres to the rule. Bieler v. Bieler, 130 Colo. 17, 272 P.2d 636. Typical of the reasoning of the courts is Merriman v. Hawbaker, D.C., 5 F. Supp. 432, 24 Am.Bankr.Rep., N.S., 452, an Illinois case, as follows: It follows that counsel fees being similarly regarded in Colorado are not dischargeable here. See also: Ross v. Keith, 238 App. Div. 640, 265 N.Y.S. 246, 23 Am.Bankr.Rep., N.S., 389; In re Ridder (2nd Cir.) 79 F.2d 524, 103 A.L.R. 719; Damon v. Damon, 1 Cir., 283 F.2d 571; In re Gorski, D.C., 25 F. Supp. 551. The judgments of the trial court are reversed with directions to reinstate the orders for counsel fees with interest from the date of the first order, and to permit enforcement of the same by contempt or other appropriate proceedings. HALL, J., dissents.