Moore v. Moore

²²⁰ Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is one of the rare appeals from an award of alimony pendente lite. The appellant-wife was awarded $100 per week, as temporary alimony by Judge Marbury in June of' 1956. Upon a petition to reduce this award upon the ground of changed circumstances, Judge Dorsey, in March of 1958, reduced the same to eighty dollars per week, and the wife-has appealed.

I The appellant first contends that the husband was not entitled to a rehearing on the question of the amount of temporary alimony because he had not prosecuted his suit, but the failure to prosecute the suit to a final conclusion is no reason to deny a petition for the reduction of the alimony, if changed circumstances warrant the same. If the wife objects to the delay in bringing the suit to a close, she has the simple remedy of laying the husband under a rule further-proceedings. II The appellant also claims that the chancellor, as one Circuit Court Judge, had no power or authority “to review” and. modify another Circuit Court judge’s order pendente lite; and, if a Circuit Court judge does have such power, the chancellor, in this case, erred; because there was no showing - of “exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of such power.” The short answer to the above is that Judge Dorsey, in this case, did not “review” the decree passed by Judge Marbury; he specifically recognized Judge Marbury’s award as reasonable at the time it was granted and considered only the circumstances that had changed since the date of Judge ■ Marbury’s decree. This is the accepted and general practice in this State, and in modifying the amount of the previous . award, Judge Dorsey did no more than what is a daily occurrence in Maryland procedure. 1 See cases cited below. ²²¹ Ill The main contention of the wife is that the evidence adduced below did not justify the chancellor in reducing the alimony from $100, per week, to eighty dollars.

As stated above, the testimony was limited to the change in circumstances of the parties from the time of the first award until the hearing on the petition to reduce the alimony. In this, the chancellor was correct. Wygodsky v. Wygodsky, 134 Md. 344, 348 , 106 A. 698 ; Langrall v. Langrall, 145 Md. 340, 345 , 125 A. 695 . Cf.

Slacum v. Slacum, 158 Md. 107, 111 , 148 A. 226 . This evidence, briefly summarized, discloses that the family consists of the husband and wife and a twelve year old daughter. The wife and daughter live in the home owned by the husband and wife as tenants by the entireties; the husband rents an apartment. He had a gross income in 1957 of approximately $21,000.

His principal income is derived from his professional practice of patent law, which entails considerable expense from that income. His adjusted gross