1. DIVORCE — Time Limitation — One-Half Hour — Presentation of Evidence — Arbitrary — Abuse of Discretion. Where trial court, at hearing on property division, alimony, and attorney's fees, limited each side to one-half hour for presentation of evidence, where court did interrupt testimony of wife at end of the hour so that wife had no opportunity to complete her evidence, nor was husband allowed time for rebuttal, and where wife's attorney was advised that any time taken for cross-examination would be charged against half-hour allocated for presentation of her case, held, under these circumstances, parties were denied a full and fair hearing; and the time limitation was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Opinion by JUDGE ENOCH.
This appeal concerns the permanent orders entered subsequent to a decree of divorce. The defendant-appellant will be referred to as the wife and plaintiff-appellee as the husband.
The wife alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the time for the hearing on the property division and in awarding only $200 for the wife's attorney's fees. We agree.
At the beginning of the scheduled hearing on the property division, alimony, and attorney's fees, the court advised the parties that each side would be allowed one-half hour for the presentation of evidence and stated that, "When you get into the second half hour the Court will make its ruling, regardless of the status of the testimony in evidence." The court did in fact interrupt the testimony of the wife at the end of the hour with the declaration, ". . . and that concluded the testimony so far as this Court is concerned. The time has expired for testimony." The wife had no opportunity to complete her evidence, nor was the husband allowed any time for rebuttal. The parties and their attorneys were constantly pushed through the hearing with repeated reminders of their limited time and the wife's attorney was further advised that he could cross-examine the husband's witness, but that any time taken for cross-examination would be charged against the wife's 30 minutes allocated for the presentation of her case.
[1] We are aware of the crowded docket in the domestic relations division of the court and the obligation of the trial court to move matters before it as rapidly as possible. Nevertheless, litigants are entitled to have sufficient time to make an orderly presentation of their case. Under the circumstances of this case, the parties were denied a full and fair hearing and the time limitation was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Anderson v. Anderson, 167 Colo. 88, 445 P.2d 397.
[2] In regard to the award of attorney's fees, the Supreme Court has stated in Bieler v. Bieler, 130 Colo. 17, 272 P.2d 636, that, "it is the purpose of . . . attorney fees to place the wife on an equal footing with her husband for . . . her maintenance of the proceeding." The record shows that the husband had an annual income of approximately $20,000; had obligated himself to fees for his own attorney in the amount of $1,600; that the wife was unemployed and had no independent income. There were numerous court appearances in this case prior to the final hearing. Under these circumstances, the $200 awarded to the wife for attorney's fees was grossly inadequate and was an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for a new hearing on permanent orders and attorney's fees.
CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE DWYER concur.