Case Name: GUENIN v. GUENIN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-12-04
Citations: 28 Mich. App. 449
Docket Number: Docket No. 7715
Parties: GUENIN v. GUENIN
Judges: Before: Bronson, P. J., and Fitzergerald and Churchill, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 28
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
GUENIN v. GUENIN
Divorce — Appeal and Error — De Novo Review — Findings of Trial Court — Corroboration—Extreme Cruelty.
The Court of Appeals, on de novo review of a divorce ease, gives special weight to the trial judge’s findings even when there is little or no corroborative evidence and finds that the record in the case supports the trial court’s findings that the defendant’s autocratic behavior was extreme cruelty and that the trial court did not find nor does the Court of Appeals find, misconduct by the plaintiff of an equivalent nature.
Reference for Points in Headnote
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 868.
Appeal from Saginaw, Eugene Snow Huff, J. Submitted Division 3 November 4, 1970, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 7715.)
Decided December 4, 1970.
Complaint by Bernadette L. Guenin against Louis J. Guenin for divorce. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Albert O. Reinert, for plaintiff.
Otto & Otto, for defendant.
Before: Bronson, P. J., and Fitzergerald and Churchill, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff wife sued for an absolute divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. CL 1948, § 552.7 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.87). After a trial at which only the parties and one other witness testified, the trial judge filed a carefully prepared written opinion containing detailed findings of fact. The trial judge, citing specific incidents, found that the defendant-husband dominated every act relating to the plaintiff's house, her children, and the plaintiff herself and that he disciplined and punished her like a small child for imaginary misdeeds, thus depriving her of essential human dignity to an intolerable degree and making her life unendurable.
Although our review is de novo, we give special weight to the trial judge's findings. Butgereit v. Butgereit (1967), 8 Mich App 246. This special weight is given even when there is little or no corroborative evidence. Winkelman v. Winkelman (1969), 20 Mich App 305. The record supports, and we make, the same findings. Defendant's autocratic behavior was extreme cruelty.
The trial court did not find, nor do we find, misconduct by the wife of an equivalent nature. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of divorce. Miller v. Miller (1948), 320 Mich 43.
"We affirm. Costs to appellee.