ABK.] RAY V. RAY. 765 RAY V. RAY. 4-7059 170 S. W. 2d 681 . Opinion delivered May 3, 1943. ALImoNv—CHANGE IN ALLOWANCE.—Under § 4392, Pope's Dig., authorizing courtS to make such alterations from time to time in alimony allowances as may. be proper, an order made in 1935 or 1936 allowing appellee $15 per month alimony and $7.50 per. month for each of two children may, in 1943 after the children reached their majority and relieved appellant of the payments for their support and the value of appellant's property and perhaps his earning capacity have increased, be altered by requiring him to pay to appellee who is near 65 years of age and in poor health $25 per . month, and the decree to that effect . was supported-by the p reponderance of the evidence. Appeal from 'Baxter Chancery Court ; M. Shinn, Chancellor ; affirmed. H. J. Denton, Merle Shouse and J. Loyd ShoUse, for appellant. Ernie Wright, for appellee. MCITANE y , J. Appellee sued appellant for divorce in 1934. A divorce was granted on his cross-complaint
766 RAY v. RAY. [205 in April, 1935, and she was allowed $30 per month alimony. On appeal to this court, the decree of divorce was affirmed, but the alimony allowance was modified to allow her $15 per . month and $7.50 per month each to two minor girl children of the parties. Ray v. Ray, 1.92 A rk. 660, 93 S. W. 2d 665. The two girls are now of age, one being married and living with her husband and the other living in California. On September 11, 1942, appellee filed her petition in the court below for a modification of the former allowance to her, alleging that the cost of living has greatly increased since that time, her inability to subsist thereon, it being her only source of income, and that appellant is better able to pay now than at the time of the former decree. Appellant denied that his financial ability to pay now was better than formerly and alleged that, if any change were to •be made, the allowance should be reduced. • Trial resulted hi a finding that appellant had been yelieved of the monthly payments to one of his daughters and soon would be to the other, she not then, October 1.9, 1.942, being of age; and that the minimum requirements of appellee, who is 63 years of age, has no other source of income and is in poor health, is $25 per month. A decree was entered accordingly. The sole question presented by this appeal is one of fact, and that is: Are the factS sufficient to support the decree? In other words, is the 'decree hi accordance with tbe preponderance of the evidence? We think it is, or at least we cannot say it is against the preponderance or the evidence. Appellant Owns and operates three small stores, one in Mountain Home, another in Cotter, and another in Ellis. He owns the land on which the store building in Mountain Home is located, about 16 acres, and there was testimony of • a disinterested witness that it, with the improvements, is now worth $7,000 or $8,000. The lot and store building in Cotter is valued by him at $1,500. He owns lands in New Meico and two tracts at Ellis of uncertain value. His income is probably in excess of what it was in 1_935 and 1936. Ile has been relieved of the payments to his daughters, and the amount
767 - imposed .on him by the decree here appealed . from is less than the total amount required under the former decree. The chancery court is given the power by statute, § 4392 . , Pope's Digest, to make. such al1erations -from time to time in alimony allowances as may be proper. In Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119, it was held, to 'quote lieadnote 4, "Decrees . for continuing alimony are always subject to the modification of the court upon a change of circumstances, upon the application of either party." See, also, PrY or . v. Pryor, 88 Ark..302, 114 S. W. 700, 129 A.m. St. Rep.1.02, and other cases cited under said section of the Digest. We think tbe record refleets changed conditions which justified the court in modifying the fOrmer alloWance, such as increased cost of living, the relief from the allowances to appellant's daughters, enhanced values in his properties and perhaps increased earnings. Ap-pellee is in poor health, nearly, 65 yearS of age and has no other Mcome. It appears to us that his opposition to this small increase is wholly unjustified. The decree• is affirmed with costs to appellee, in- - eluding a fee of $50 for her attorney in this court.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.