Southworth v. Treadwell

Reduction of Alimony on Remarriage of Libellant. Alimony, though granted by a decree of the court in pursuance of an agreement of the parties, is not a vested right beyond the power of the court to change, and the remarriage of the wife is prima facie cause for its reduction to a nominal sum.

Petition for the reduction of alimony. The petition alleged that on June 5, 1890, a divorce from the petitioner was granted to the respondent on the ground of desertion, with an allowance of one hundred and fifty dollars a month as alimonythat on January 23, 1896, the respondent was married to one Treadwell, with whom she thereafter lived, and that the payment of the alimony as required by the decree was a burden upon the petitioner. The prayer of the petition was that the order as to alimony should be revoked, or the alimony reduced. The answer alleged that the decree as to alimony was based upon an agreement to the same effect between the parties, and that it was therefore a vesteNd interest which could not be avoided by a subsequent decree ; that the remarriage of the respondent had not materially changed her circumstances, and that the continued payment of alimony was necessary to her support ; and denied that its payment was a burden to the petitioner. The case was heard in the Superior Court, upon an agreed statement of facts, by Lilley, J., who granted the prayer of the petition, and reduced the alimony to one dollar a year, and after-wards, at the request of the parties, reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows. The petitioner and respondent were married on October 21, 1861, and the respondent obtained a divorce from the petitioner for desertion on June 5, 1890. Subsequently, the parties agreed in writing that alimony should he allowed to the respondent at the rate of $150 per month, and on June 21,1890, this agreement was adopted as the order of the court, and ordered to be embodied in the decree absolute when such decree, if any, should be entered. On March 3, 1891, the divorce was made absolute. At the hearing on this petition, the respondent admitted her marriage to one Treadwell, who was present with her in court, but there was no other evidence. The respondent requested the judge to rule that the alimony was a vested right which the court had no power to disturb, and that in order to maintain this petition the petitioner was bound to show that, by her remarriage, the respondent’s financial condition was so changed that she did not need the alimony allowed to her. The judge declined to rule as requested, and, at the request of the petitioner, ruled that the remarriage of the respondent was prima facie cause for the reduction of alimony to a nominal sum. The respondent alleged exceptions. If the rulings and refusals to rule were right, the decree reducing the alimony was to be affirmed; otherwise, the case was to stand for further hearing.