Court Opinion

ID: 9552238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:06:57.420558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:51.928086
License: Public Domain

PARKER, Justice
(concurring) :
The trial court was correct in its ruling from the bench as reported by counsel that the award at the time of the divorce was a property settlement rather than alimony and that the husband would be required to continue the seventy-five dollar monthly payments specified in the decree and to make up any deficiency. Several factors convince me of the equity in such an interpretion:
1. The allegations in the affirmative defense and counterclaim of the wife in combination with the court’s granting the divorce to her on her counterclaim indicated the merit of her charges against the plaintiff.
2. The court’s letter in the file written after the hearing on the petition to modify, stating “It was evidently the intention of the Court when the Neagle decree was entered to consider the $75.00 per month payment as a property settlement rather than alimony,” is controlling and should be given especial weight since the same judge presided in both the original and supplemental proceedings.
3.The words “in lieu of by universal interpretation mean “instead of,” “in place of,” or “in substitution for” and certainly when so used in this instance cannot mean any intention that the decree was one for alimony.