Court Opinion

ID: 9528399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:47.158916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:05.823962
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Eoyse, P. J.
I cannot agree with the opinion and that part of the decision of the majority reversing the award of alimony and attorney fees.
In the first place, I believe there is serious question as to whether appellant’s brief has presented a question to this court. Be that as it may, it seems to me the majority opinion has violated one of the cardinal rules of appellate procedure, that this court will not weigh the evidence.
The evidence in the record herein could reasonably lead to the inference that at the time the trial of this cause appellant was a man of great wealth, who had, for several years prior to the trial, for the purpose of evading tax and other obligations, placed his property in the names of others, including his brother.
The majority opinion recognizes that the allowance of alimony is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. In my opinion the record and brief herein do not show there has been an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in this case.
The rather lengthy discussion in the majority opinion of matters not necessary to a determination of the question decided, causes me to feel their action is motivated more by indignation at the unconventional manner in which the parties met and by a prejudice toward miscegenatious marriages than by a consideration of the legal principles which should be our guide in this ease.
Note.—Eeported in 125 N. E. 2d 816.