Title: Udy v. Udy

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed May 21, 1952.
Petition for rehearing denied June 9, 1952.
*157 E.R. Ringo, of La Grande, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
Before BRAND, Chief Justice, and HAY, LATOURETTE, WARNER and TOOZE, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
TOOZE, J.
This is an appeal from an order and decree denying a motion for modification of a divorce decree respecting the custody and support of a minor child.
On January 20, 1948, Mabel Udy, as plaintiff, commenced suit for divorce in the circuit court for Union county against George Udy, as defendant, upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Deirdre Udy, *158 then aged 12 years, is the lawful issue of the marriage between plaintiff and defendant. On February 13, 1948, there was duly filed in said court and suit a written stipulation in words and figures as follows:
On February 13, 1948, a decree of divorce was entered in said court and suit in favor of plaintiff, and which decree in part provided:
*160 On July 30, 1951, defendant filed his motion, supported by affidavit, for a modification of said decree, so as to relieve him of the payment of $30 per month toward the care and support of said minor child. Plaintiff filed a counteraffidavit in opposition to the motion. A hearing was held, and oral testimony was offered by both parties. Based upon this testimony and the several affidavits filed, the trial court denied the motion.
1, 2. The jurisdiction of the trial court to modify a divorce decree insofar as it provides for the care, custody, and maintenance of minor children is a continuing jurisdiction and may be exercised whenever changed conditions justify such modification. And this power of the court is in no way affected by the fact that the parties have entered into a stipulation relative to those matters. Warrington v. Warrington, 160 Or 77, 83 P2d 479; Mason v. Mason, 148 Or 34, 34 P2d 328; Warner v. Warner, 145 Or 541, 28 P2d 625; § 9-915, OCLA, as amended by ch 584, Oregon Laws 1947; 27 CJS, Divorce, 1237, § 322.
3. A petition for modification of a decree respecting the care, custody, and maintenance of minor children of divorced parents is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In cases where the evidence is conflicting, this court will accord great weight to conclusions of the trial judge, and will not ordinarily disturb them unless there has been an abuse of discretion.
In the instant case, the evidence discloses that both plaintiff and defendant have remarried. The minor child, now 16 years of age, resides with plaintiff and her present husband, one Fred Ovesen, at Vernonia, in Columbia county. Mr. Ovesen is a man of substantial means. He is devoted to the child, has made her one of his family, and has been very liberal in his financial *161 contributions toward her support and education. The child has a high regard for her stepfather and, as a witness, expressed her desire to remain with him and her mother.
Defendant lives with his present wife and her eleven-year-old daughter in a four-room house located in La Grande. He is purchasing the house on contract, being required to pay $50 per month on the purchase price. He is an employe of the city of La Grande, and his take-home pay is approximately $200 per month. His present wife does some work outside the home, having a monthly income averaging $15. The evidence does not disclose whether the father of defendant's stepchild is alive or not, nor, if alive, whether he is contributing anything toward his child's support.
The Ovesen family lives in one of two hotels owned by Mr. Ovesen at Vernonia, and the evidence discloses that Deirdre assists at times in and about the hotel by washing dishes, sweeping, mopping, and making up beds.
It is defendant's contention that inasmuch as Mr. Ovesen has taken the child into his home as a member of his family, and is enjoying the benefits of her society, companionship, and services, to the total exclusion of the natural father, that the burden of the child's support should fall upon the shoulders of Ovesen. Further, defendant points out his own precarious financial condition.
4. The evidence to which we have called attention was material in determining the question of whether or not the decree respecting support money for the minor child should be modified. Remarriage of defendant is not alone ground for changing the decree; neither is the remarriage of the plaintiff. But such remarriage is one of the facts that should be taken into consideration, *162 in connection with all the other circumstances of the case, in determining the ultimate question. In 27 CJS, Divorce, 1245, § 322, it is stated:
5. The evidence discloses that plaintiff still owns the real property received by her pursuant to the stipulation filed in the divorce suit. However, the record is silent as to the present value of her interest therein. That is a matter of importance in determining the question of whether the decree should be modified.
The fact that the stepfather has taken the child into his family and is receiving the benefit of her services, as well as society and companionship, is very material. The record is wholly silent as to the regularity of performance of such services, or as to their value.
6. Mindful of the fact that defendant may at any time file another motion for modification of decree, *163 upon the hearing of which he may offer evidence, if available, that will supply some of the defects in the present record, and not being satisfied that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court under the record in this case, we affirm the decree.
Neither party to recover costs.