Title: Palmer v. Palmer
Citation: 281 N.W.2d 263
Docket Number: 12215
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: July 5, 1979

281 N.W.2d 263 (1979) Kenneth L. PALMER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Doris M. PALMER, Defendant and Appellant. No. 12215. Supreme Court of South Dakota. July 5, 1979. Rehearing Denied August 17, 1979. Merle Johnson and Stuart L. Tiede of Woods, Fuller, Shultz &amp; Smith, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and respondent. Carleton R. Hoy of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz &amp; Smith, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant. WOLLMAN, Chief Justice (on reassignment). This is an appeal from a decree of divorce in favor of plaintiff husband that terminated a twenty-five year marriage between the parties. Defendant wife appeals, arguing that plaintiff did not establish grounds for granting the decree.[1] We reverse. The parties were married on December 23, 1950. Three children were born to the marriage, all of whom are now adults. In 1973, plaintiff admitted to his wife that he had been seeing his secretary but that the relationship "was all over now." Upon plaintiff's return from a trip to Reno, Nevada, in 1974, however, Mrs. Palmer discovered a receipt for a diamond ring that plaintiff had purchased for his secretary. Plaintiff moved out of the home in June of 1975, and the parties have been separated since that time. Plaintiff acknowledged at trial that he was still carrying on his relationship with the other woman. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that his wife had inflicted grievous mental suffering upon him. He testified that she was suspicious of his activities away from the home and that she had sought to confirm these suspicions by periodically checking on his whereabouts, by observing the mileage on his car, and by checking the contents of his pockets. Plaintiff's only evidence of the effect of his wife's behavior on him was his unsupported assertion that stresses in the marriage had caused him to suffer backaches.[2] *264 SDCL 25-4-2 includes among the grounds for divorce extreme cruelty, which is defined by SDCL 25-4-4 as "the infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering upon the other, by one party to the marriage." The evidence of extreme cruelty in this case does not even approach that found in Pochop v. Pochop, 89 S.D. 466, 233 N.W.2d 806 (1975), a decision that may well represent the outer limits of liberality in sustaining a finding of extreme cruelty and which should not be read as abrogating the requirement that there be record evidence of the grounds for divorce. We conclude that the trial court erred in determining that Mrs. Palmer had been guilty of extreme cruelty toward plaintiff. Suspicious she may have been, but plaintiff can hardly fault her for that, given his admissions and her discoveries.[3] The judgment is reversed. DUNN and MORGAN, JJ., concur. HENDERSON and FOSHEIM, JJ., dissent. HENDERSON, Justice (dissenting). For purposes of clarity, plaintiff-respondent shall be referred to as "husband" and defendant-appellant shall be referred to as "wife." SDCL 25-4-4 defines extreme cruelty as "the infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering upon the other, by one party to the marriage." It is one of the six grounds for divorce in the State of South Dakota. Husband sued for divorce. The wife put husband on his proof; she did not sue for divorce. Essentially, she is waging a blocking action. In my opinion the husband proved up grounds for divorce. The parties have been separated and living apart since 1975. He established that he had endured grievous mental suffering from the actions, words, conduct, and abuse of his wife. The wife could well be characterized, in this case, as a petulant fault finder, nag, and crank. She treated her husband with disdain, scorn, and very little respect. This conduct, over a period of many years of married life, long anteceded his gift of a diamond ring to his secretary. The trial court had the right to consider the entire series of acts constituting cruel and inhuman treatment and to conclude that all, taken together, would justify granting a divorce, even though no one act alone would. See Habeck v. Habeck, 51 S.D. 455, 214 N.W. 846 (1927). Some of the facts that the husband testified to are: Wife testified that all the problems in the marriage started in 1973, after he hired the new girl (the secretary who received the diamond ring). Wife testified, which appears patently erroneous, that there had been no definite problems in the marriage of any sort up until the time that husband hired the new girl. However, in 1972 they had sought out marriage counseling concerning the problems in the marriage, which were obviously unrelated to the gift of the diamond ring to the secretary. The findings of the trial court in part are as follows: It is therefore obvious to me that the lower court's findings of fact are in accord with the testimony. SDCL 15-6-52(a) provides in part: "Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses." Spaulding v. Spaulding, 278 N.W.2d 639 (S.D.1979); Isaak v. Isaak, 278 N.W.2d 445 (S.D.1979); Holforty v. Holforty, 272 N.W.2d 810 (S.D.1978); Masek v. Masek, 89 S.D. 62, 228 N.W.2d 334 (1975); Pochop v. Pochop, 89 S.D. 466, 233 N.W.2d 806 (1975). The trial court believed the husband and was unimpressed with the wife's testimony. The majority opinion is apparently impressed with the wife's testimony regarding the secretary-diamond ring scenario. I therefore consider the decision of the majority as a sub silentio departure from these cases. Additionally, the defense of recrimination has been statutorily repealed. If, indeed, husband gave the secretary a diamond ring, this should not estop husband from obtaining a divorce from wife. It was her decision to not sue for a divorce. In Pochop v. Pochop, supra, this court essentially held that there can be no set definition of extreme cruelty applicable to every marital setting. We held that the personalities of the parties involved, in addition to a number of other factors, must be considered in determining what should fall within the parameters of a workable marital relationship and what will not. We should now view this case in the light of that holding. I consider the facts herein, as outlined above, to be far more grievous than the grounds sustained in Pochop. We cannot set aside the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and we are, after a review of all the evidence, left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 89 S. Ct. 1562, 23 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1969); Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P. A., 262 N.W.2d 508 (S.D.1978); Schutterle v. Schutterle, 260 N.W.2d 341 (S.D.1977); The Collegian v. Hileman, 88 S.D. 601, 226 N.W.2d 163 (1975); In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970). The language in these cases was approved by this court as recent as April 26, 1979, in Matter of V.D.D., 278 N.W.2d 194 (S.D. 1979). The majority opinion ignores by silence this rule of law and precedent. Under the terms of our statute, what is grievous mental suffering? Did the husband endure it? Let us examine our sister states. *267 North Dakota (extreme cruelty definition identical): A decree of divorce may be granted in this state by reason of the infliction of grievous mental suffering although such suffering produced no bodily injury. Raszler v. Raszler, 64 N.W.2d 358 (N.D.1954); Rindlaub v. Rindlaub, 19 N.D. 352, 125 N.W. 479 (1910); DeRoche v. DeRoche, 12 N.D. 17, 94 N.W. 767 (1903); Mahnken v. Mahnken, 9 N.D. 188, 82 N.W. 870 (1900). Conduct on the part of either spouse which is unjustifiable, and which grievously wounded the mental feelings of the other so as to impair the other's bodily health, or to cause destruction of the ends of marriage, constitutes extreme cruelty. Fleck v. Fleck, 79 N.D. 561, 58 N.W.2d 765 (1953); Thompson v. Thompson, 32 N.D. 530, 156 N.W. 492 (1916). "`Mental cruelty may be inflicted by the use of words or acts or conduct which constitutes quarreling or fault finding and which are such as to affect the health, the well-being or the peace of mind of either of the parties.' (Emphasis added.)" Cochran v. Cochran, 164 Colo. 99, 101, 432 P.2d 752, 753 (1967), quoting the trial court's definition of mental cruelty. California (statute[*] identical except for one word; it states "wrongful infliction" rather than "infliction"): Under this section, defining "extreme cruelty" justifying a divorce as the wrongful infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering, the wrongful infliction of grievous mental suffering is "extreme cruelty," though no injury to the health of the spouse injured is caused thereby, and a single act of cruelty may be of such a nature, though it consists solely of unfounded charges, as not only to inflict the most grievous mental suffering, but also to render impossible the subsequent living together of husband and wife, justifying a divorce. Anderson v. Anderson, 68 Cal. App. 218, 228 P. 715 (1924); MacDonald v. MacDonald, 155 Cal. 665, 102 P. 927 (1909). Approving the language of its previous holdings, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated: Vincent v. Vincent, 208 Okl. 470, 473, 257 P.2d 512, 515 (1953). In Saint v. Saint, 196 Kan. 330, 411 P.2d 683 (1966), the wife was repeatedly angered at her husband, would pout and sulk and retire to her bedroom or the basement, and for days at a time would refuse to speak or communicate. The Kansas Supreme Court held this constituted extreme cruelty. Approving previous decisions, it expressed: Saint v. Saint, 196 Kan. at 331, 411 P.2d at 686, quoting from Hayn v. Hayn, 162 Kan. 189, 193, 175 P.2d 127, 130 (1946). Refusal of a spouse to speak to the other for a long period of time has been held, in *268 connection with other circumstances, to constitute cruelty. Hiecke v. Hiecke, 163 Wis. 171, 157 N.W. 747 (1916); Reinhard v. Reinhard, 96 Wis. 555, 71 N.W. 803 (1897). I would affirm the trial court in granting the husband a divorce. The wife perpetrated years of intentional incivility, open hostility and exhibited a manifestation of settled dislike toward her husband. This conduct lashes love, the cornerstone of marriage. The majority opinion, due to its decision in reversing the trial court on the divorce issue, did not address the other two remaining issues: The supposed inequitability of the property settlement and the urged unconstitutionality of SDCL 25-4-41. I likewise feel compelled to a non-review of these issues as the constitutional question was first urged at appellate level and the urged inequitable division of property could well, in the future, surface before this court. I am hereby authorized to state that Justice Fosheim joins in this dissent. [1] Defendant wife also appeals from the property settlement, support, and alimony judgment entered by the trial court. In view of our disposition of the divorce decree upon which the judgment is based, we do not discuss the merits of this contention. [2] That this marriage, like so many others, was not entirely free from discord is illustrated by plaintiff's testimony that in 1972 Mrs. Palmer had suggested counseling and that they had spoken to marriage counselors on two occasions. Mrs. Palmer testified that she and plaintiff had spoken with a marriage counselor on one occasion, apparently in the summer of 1972, but that plaintiff had refused to go back for further counseling. [3] The transcript in this case is rather typical of contested divorce cases. The husband's extra-curricular activities are suspect; the wife is a jealous nag and impossible to live with. The only clear, tangible, and undisputed evidence that sets this case apart from the typical case is the fact of plaintiff's purchase of a diamond ring for his girl friend. This he could not deny. When confronted with the proof of his misconduct, he responds by attempting to ascribe his actions to his wife's jealous conduct over the years. The fact remains that plaintiff did live with his wife for a quarter of a century, including a period in 1973 during which, according to plaintiff's testimony, the relationship between the parties was "very good," and now seeks a divorce based upon her jealous rages after her suspicions were confirmed by undisputed evidence. This opinion should not be read as a judicial revival of the statutorily repealed defense of recrimination. Rather, we view the evidence in the light of the full context of the relationship between the parties and not in the narrow light of isolated incidents, at least one of which dates back nearly a score of years. [*] California has now repealed this statute.