Court Opinion

ID: 9517015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:00:23.710694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:00.595833
License: Public Domain

Memorandum on Denial of Petition for Rehearing In the petition for rehearing plaintiff’s counsel have set up facts not heretofore argued and in support thereof have filed an additional abstract. Defendant has moved to strike the additional abstract and the petition for rehearing. He asserts that the evidence is not correctly abstracted and does not support the statements made in the petition for rehearing.  There is no provision in the rules for the filing of an additional abstract after a decision of a case. Circumstances could exist under which the court would not permit an injustice to be done by reason of a misunderstanding of the facts. That is not the situation here. In our opinion in this case we assumed that the figures of $200 a week gross income for defendant and $60 for plaintiff were correct. These figures were concurred in by attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant and that was the basis upon which the trial court made its decision. As set forth in the opinion, we took into consideration the fact that plaintiff had the use of the house in which she claims an interest and that defendant was making the 'mortgage payments thereon and was paying all expenses connected with the operation of the house. Counsel for plaintiff now argues that deféndant’s income was more than the figure given, and explains that he accepted the figure given for defendant’s income because he relied upon the abstract presented by defendant and' did not examine the record. The figures we used were accepted by the trial court as well as counsel, as appears from page 254 of the record, where the court said: “. . . I am not basing my conclusion on anything other than the testimony of the defendant and am ignoring for the present purpose the possibility the defendant may or may not reduce his income or that his income may reach the figure of $500 per week or any other sum above the $847 per month of which he testified.” The court then said that the case should be reached for trial before court adjourned in July and hence that it was a matter of making allowance for a period of six weeks only. This was a further .reason why defendant should have been given a prompt hearing. Ordinarily we would not interfere with the discretion of the trial court in the allowance of temporary alimony, but the extraordinary circumstances of this case made it necessary. The objections to the additional abstract and to the verity of the new facts as now asserted in plaintiff’s petition for rehearing seem to be well taken. However, we do not attribute the errors to any deliberate motive on the part of plaintiff’s counsel, as counsel for defendant does, but to the heavy burden of labor imposed upon these lawyers, as upon others of the trial bar of this county. As counsel for plaintiff said, the issue still remains undetermined, “pending and bitterly contested.” It is the duty of the lawyers for both plaintiff and defendant not to permit such bitterness to flow into their own hearts and minds. This is in their personal interest as well as in the interest of this litigation. The matter of alimony and solicitor’s fees can best be determined by an early hearing on the merits. With respect to the denial of the motion for continuance on account of engagement of counsel, the petition presents no new matter. The petition for rehearing is denied. Petition denied. McCORMICK, P. J. and ROBSON, J., concur.