Court Opinion

ID: 9736208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:47:07.20223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.037170
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL delivered the opinion of the court: Following the filing of our original opinion, plaintiff has filed a petition for rehearing in this court, urging that we clarify our opinion in regard to whether the respondent is required to make all utility payments, as was required by the original decree, or merely contribute $125 per month, pursuant to the modified decree. Since it has been determined that the provision of the original decree allowing the petitioner to remain in possession of the residence at no cost to herself until she remarried was part of a property settlement and, therefore, unmodifiable, it seems clear that the portion of the order of the trial court setting the respondent’s contribution for utilities at $125 must also be stricken. Petition for rehearing is denied. BARRY and SCOTT, JJ., concur.