Court Opinion

ID: 9733428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:07:27.295327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:41.420917
License: Public Domain

*656MYERS, Associate Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I am in full accord with the reasoning and conclusions of the majority opinion that the trial judge was in error in holding that under Schiller v. Schiller, D.C.App., 194 A.2d 665, he lacked jurisdiction to .award maintenance for the two minor children; that as the father did not question the right of appellant to their custody, the court was not precluded by the provisions of Sec. 16-4151 from awarding support for the children; and that the case should be reversed and remanded for that purpose.
I cannot agree, however, that the case should also be retried for determination of an award of separate maintenance for the wife. Sec. 16-415 provides that the court may award maintenance to a wife if the husband shall fail or refuse to maintain her, although able to do so. Thus it does not compel an award. We have ruled frequently that this is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial court and that we will not disturb its judgment except upon a clear showing of abuse.2
From the record it appears that the wife was denied separate maintenance because she was employed and had a take-home pay of approximately $306 a month, which the trial judge found was “enough to take care of herself.” It must necessarily be presumed that in reaching this conclusion the trial judge weighed and considered appellant’s needs and resources and the husband’s financial ability to supplement her income. It is well settled that a wife’s pecuniary resources are a relevant consideration which may limit an award of maintenance or defeat it altogether.3
In the light of the broad discretion given the trial court in this area and in the absence of any clear showing of abuse, I cannot subscribe to the majority opinion that it was error to deny the wife maintenance “because she is earning sufficient to enable her to live.”4 I would affirm the trial court’s determination of this issue of fact.

. Now Sec. 16-916, District of Columbia Code, 1961 edition as amended.

. Verges v. Verges, D.C.App., 193 A.2d 208; Dawson v. Dawson, D.C.App., 193 A.2d 70; Bell v. Bell, D.C.App., 190 A.2d 265, 266; Rutherford v. Rutherford, D.C. App., 189 A.2d 124, 125; Johnson v. Johnson, D.C.Mun.App., 163 A.2d 127, 128.

. Foley v. Foley, D.C.Mun.App., 184 A.2d 853, 855.

.I am of the opinion that the trial court, under the dictates of Rule 7 of the Domestic Relations Branch, should have rendered more detailed findings of fact in support of its denial of maintenance. Hamilton v. Hamilton, D.C.Mun.App., 158 A.2d 677, 679; O’Lea v. O’Lea, D.C. Mun.App., 138 A.2d 486, 487. This omission, however, does not require a reversal.