{
  "id": 2467001,
  "name": "Patricia W. Booth, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonard J. Booth, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Booth v. Booth",
  "decision_date": "1972-05-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 56289",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "64",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. App. 3d 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "221 N.E.2d 160",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill.App.2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2579193
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/75/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.E.2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 Ill.App. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5096430
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/348/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.E.2d 726",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ill.App. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4989362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/341/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.E.2d 159",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill.App.2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1584462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/119/0295-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4180,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4005551432885345e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6446055349172867
    },
    "sha256": "8f943a02962d80c74a48d62f72966bf98bfffd922c53002a053c31a1375218b0",
    "simhash": "1:96339c42365d45fb",
    "word_count": 674
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:18.777064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Patricia W. Booth, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonard J. Booth, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Patricia Booth, appeals from an order which modified the; original divorce decree by sustaining the motion of the defendant,, Leonard Booth, for a reduction in alimony. On appeal the plaintiff\u2019s contentions are:\n1. That the modification of the decree was unreasonable and improper; and\n2. That the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only one-half the amount of attorney\u2019s fees requested.\nThe facts are as follows:\nOn June 6, 1967, a decree of divorce was granted and plaintiff was awarded $500.00 per month alimony, $416.66 per month child support and custody of four children. Defendant was also required to set up a $4,000 trust fund for the education of the children. Later, defendant was ordered to provide for his children\u2019s college education by paying $50.00 per month per child in college until December 31, 1971 and $100.00 per month per child in college thereafter.\nOn April 6, 1971, defendant filed a motion for reduction in alimony. In response, plaintiff filed a motion to increase child support. It was stipulated during the hearing that plaintiff presently received $7,600.00 per year as a school teacher. Plaintiff\u2019s attorney stated that \u201cthere were no minor children presently at home.\u201d Defendant testified that he was deeply in debt, ip danger of losing his job and owed $1,756.00 in attorney\u2019s fees. Defendant also testified that he had remarried and that his net income was less than $1,400.00 per month.\nPlaintiff\u2019s first contention was that the modification of the divorce decree was unreasonable and improper.\nThe record reveals that there was a substantial change in circumstances which supported defendant\u2019s motion for modification of the decree. Defendant had remarried. While this circumstance does not present in itself a change of conditions sufficient to warrant modification of alimony, it is a factor to be taken into account together with all other circumstances. Defendant had debts of almost $5,000.00. The children were no longer minors and did not live at home. These significant factors along with the fact that the plaintiff was employed as a school teacher supported the trial court\u2019s determination that there was a substantial change in circumstances.\nPlaintiff cited Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 119 Ill.App.2d 295, 256 N.E.2d 159 and Walters v. Walters, 341 Ill.App. 561, 94 N.E.2d 726, as holding that a wife is entitled to receive alimony which will maintain her in that mode of living accustomed to during marriage. Both cases concerned discussing and defining the terms alimony and alimony in gross. Both cases also held that alimony was modifiable upon proof of change of circumstances. In the instant case defendant has shown that plaintiff\u2019s needs have decreased and his ability to pay has decreased.\nPlaintiff cited Bidle v. Bidle, 348 Ill.App. 222, 108 N.E.2d 790, in which the evidence showed that the wife was earning a salary when the decree was entered. In the instant case plaintiff was not earning $7,600.00 annually when the decree was entered.\nWhether the alimony to be paid by the defendant should have been reduced rested within the sound discretion of the court. We cannot say on this record that the trial judge abused his discretion.\nPlaintiff\u2019s second contention was that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only one-half of the amount of attorney\u2019s fees requested. It is well settled that allowance of attorney\u2019s fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. (Blowitz v. Blowitz, 75 Ill.App.2d 386, 221 N.E.2d 160.) The disallowance of one-half the attorney\u2019s fees requested was in our opinion within the sound discretion of the court and we perceive no abuse therein.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDIEBINGER, P, J., and BURMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cummings & Wyman, of Chicago, (Austin L. Wyman, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Leonard J. Booth, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Patricia W. Booth, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonard J. Booth, Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 56289;\nFirst District\nMay 24, 1972.\nCummings & Wyman, of Chicago, (Austin L. Wyman, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.\nLeonard J. Booth, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 86
}