Opinion
Dec. 31, 1974. Not Selected for Official Publication
Robert G. Stovall, Jr., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert Leland Johnson, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
SMITH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying Husband's motion for a modification of alimony entered in an action for divorce. We affirm.
On July 21, 1971, the trial court granted a divorce decree to each of the parties, thereby ending their marriage of approximately twenty years. On February 2, 1972, the trial court, after a full hearing, entered permanent orders directing, among other things, that the Husband pay alimony to Wife in the amount of $900 per month. Subsequently, on October 20, 1972, the Husband filed his motion for reduction of alimony and, after a series of hearings, the trial court on August 31, 1973, denied his motion.
The Husband has continued to pay alimony as required by the permanent orders. The Wife has a long history of psychiatric problems and has repeatedly needed periodic hospitalization and psychiatric care since 1967. The prognosis for her ultimate recovery is poor. She was not employed during the marriage and has not been gainfully employed since the divorce. The Husband has been steadily employed throughout the marriage and subsequent to the divorce. The evidence showed that, at the time of the hearing on reduction of alimony, he had extensive capital assets and earned approximately $3000 per month in salary. He has remarried and his standard of living has been consistently high.
The burden of establishing changed circumstances sufficient to amend an award of alimony rests upon the moving party. Brownfield v. Brownfield, 143 Colo. 262, 352 P.2d 674. The court found, from the evidence presented by Husband at the hearing, that the circumstances of neither party have changed so significantly as to require a reduction of the present amount of alimony.
Modification of alimony payments rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, its judgment in such cases will not be disturbed. Frazier v. Frazier, 164 Colo. 245, 433 P.2d 764. From our reading of the record, we concur with the trial court's conclusion that the evidence failed to show that the original order is no longer fair and just, and that, accordingly, it should not be changed. Beddoes v. Beddoes, 155 Colo. 115, 393 P.2d 1.
The Husband asserts that the trial court committed prejudicial error by its conduct of the hearings in a repressive and menacing atmosphere, and by improper limitations on the production of evidence. The record does not disclose facts which support these allegations. In light of the nature of the Husband's presentations, the record demonstrates, if anything, rather patient and restrained conduct by the trial juuge presiding at these hearings.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.