Opinion
No. 23639.
Decided July 22, 1969. Rehearing denied August 25, 1969.
Action in divorce. From judgment of trial court which made division of property and awarded permanent alimony to ex-wife, ex-husband brought error.
Affirmed.
1. DIVORCE — Alimony — Division of Property — Discretion of Trial Judge. The granting of alimony and the division of property between husband and wife in divorce proceedings are matters resting within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Decision — Evidence — Review — Affirmance. If a trial court's decision is supported by competent evidence it will not ordinarily be disturbed on review.
3. DIVORCE — Award — Wife — Residence — Business — Interests — Partner — Permanent Alimony — Discretion — Propriety. In divorce action, where trial court awarded plaintiff wife the family residence; valued husband's business interests at $35,000; found that wife was partner in prior partnership which had been incorporated; and awarded wife sum of $200 per month permanent alimony, held, in so doing, trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County, Honorable Donald P. Smith, Judge.
Bernard D. Morley, for plaintiff in error.
Mellman, Mellman and Thorn, Isaac Mellman, for defendant in error.
Rose L. Hyde was granted an uncontested divorce from Richard A. Hyde on May 12, 1968. The writ of error is to judgment of the trial court making a division of property and awarding permanent alimony to be paid to Mrs. Hyde.
Mr. Hyde, plaintiff in error here, contends that the trial court erred in the following matters: Awarding the family residence to Mrs. Hyde; valuing the business interests of Mr. Hyde at $35,000; awarding Mrs. Hyde the sum of $200 per month permanent alimony; finding that Mrs. Hyde was a partner in the prior partnership which is now a corporation and constitutes the major business interest owned by Mr. Hyde.
[1,2] By law now so well-settled that citation of authority is deemed unnecessary, the granting of alimony and the division of property between husband and wife in divorce proceedings are matters resting within the sound jurisdiction of the trial judge. If the trial court's decision is supported by competent evidence it will not ordinarily be disturbed on review.
Mr. Hyde's assignments of error are addressed solely to what he apparently views as an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court since he brings to our attention no proposition of law to support his arguments. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court's orders are substantially supported by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE McWILLIAMS, MR. JUSTICE PRINGLE and MR. JUSTICE GROVES concur.