 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gupta v. Gupta7/28/2000
d its discretion.
In the case sub judice, the trial court heard evidence concerning the origins of the 158 pieces of jewelry in dispute. The testimony concerned the culture and customs of India and the Hindu religion. The appellee, as well as two other witnesses of Indian decent, testified that it was a custom in India for the woman to receive jewelry from various family members at the time of the marriage. This jewelry was considered the separate property of the woman to be used by her in times of adversity. The appellee also testified that it is tradition in India for the woman in the family to receive gifts at special occasions, i.e. births and marriages of family members. The appellee identified fifty pieces of jewelry, which were given to her as gifts at her wedding or at special family occasions. Based on this evidence, the trial court classified these pieces separate property and awarded them to the appellee. The court found five pieces of the jewelry to be the separate property of the appellant and nine pieces to be the separate property of the children and distributed it accordingly. The remaining ninety-four pieces of jewelry were divided equally amongst the parties.
The decision of the trial court is sufficiently supported by the evidence. It cannot be said that the decision of the trial court constitutes an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the appellant's fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in two of the particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the appellant's first and third assignments of error and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in two of the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the appellant's second and fourth assignments of error.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
WALTERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.
|