Summary
The Utah Supreme Court considered whether a father could stop paying a court-ordered monthly allowance for his minor son’s support, care, maintenance, and education because the son was working rather than continuously attending school. The court held that the decree did not condition payment on continuous school attendance and that the son’s employment was necessitated by the father’s nonpayment and the need to support his education and livelihood. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees to the mother in proceedings brought to enforce the support obligation and affirmed the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the divorce decree required payment of the son's monthly support allowance even when he was not continuously attending school.
- Whether the district court properly denied the father's motion to modify or eliminate the child-support obligation.
- Whether the mother was entitled to attorney fees incurred in proceedings to enforce the support obligation.
Holdings
- The $20 monthly obligation was not conditioned on the son's continuous school attendance. The father could potentially be relieved of the obligation if the son willfully and without cause refused to attend school, but the son's decision to work because he could not otherwise support himself and pursue the necessary education did not trigger that limitation.
- The district court properly refused to modify the decree because the circumstances did not establish that the son's support was no longer necessary, and the son had not willfully refused to pursue his education.
- When a father without sufficient cause refuses to comply with a divorce decree requiring periodic payments for the support, care, maintenance, and education of his children, and the mother must bring court proceedings to enforce the decree, the court may, within reasonable bounds, require the father to pay her counsel fees.
Key quotations
“Neither is such payment made upon condition that George Vernon Tribe attend school continuously and under all circumstances.” (59 Utah at 118)
“The only limitation is that the defendant need not pay the $20 in case that George Yernon Tribe willfully and without cause refuses to go to school, and not merely because he refrains from doing so because he must earn a livelihood.” (59 Utah at 119)
“If he refuses to comply with the decree, he does so at his peril, and if the court finds against him he should be required to hold the mother harmless.” (59 Utah at 120)
Factual background
Mary Tribe was awarded a divorce and custody of the parties' minor children, and the decree required Alvin Tribe to pay $20 per month during ten months of each year for the support, care, maintenance, and education of their son, George Vernon Tribe. Alvin failed to make the payments, while George attempted to attend the University of Utah but had to leave because he lacked funds and needed to work and repay debts. The district court found that George's earnings were needed for his support and education, entered judgment for $490 in arrears, awarded Mary $100 in attorney fees, and refused to modify the support provision.
Procedural history
Mary Tribe obtained a divorce decree requiring Alvin Tribe to pay $20 per month for the support, care, maintenance, and education of their minor son during ten months of each year of the son's minority. After Alvin failed to make the payments, Mary initiated contempt-related enforcement proceedings. The district court found $490 in arrearages, awarded $100 in attorney fees, and denied Alvin's request to eliminate the support provision; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed.