Court Opinion

ID: 9628538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:23:53.179139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:07.247792
License: Public Domain

*782Abbott, J.,
concurring: I would like to emphasize that the record before us contains a post-trial motion by Mr. Carey requesting that the monthly payment be reduced by one-third because one of the children “has now turned 18.” Mrs. Carey responded that Mr. Carey had agreed to pay $340 per month until her death or remarriage. A hearing was held. We are not provided with a transcript of that hearing and thus have no way of knowing what issues were raised, what position the parties took, or what evidence (if any) was presented.
The trial court then denied Mr. Carey’s motion to reduce the support payments. The journal entry denying Mr. Carey’s motion contains no information concerning what transpired, and no findings of fact or conclusions of law are set forth in the order. The record does not indicate that a request was made for additional findings of fact. Mr. Carey does not question the trial court’s failure to explain its reasons for refusing to reduce the payment. Mr. Carey’s brief relies solely on Brady v. Brady, 225 Kan. 485, 592 P.2d 865 (1979). Mr. Carey has the burden of showing error by the trial court. He has failed to do so, and I would affirm on that basis.