Title: Berry v. Berry
Citation: 310 So. 2d 626
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 1975

310 So. 2d 626 (1975) Dana Gay Seal BERRY v. Kenneth Dale BERRY. No. 55465. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 31, 1975. Rehearing Denied April 25, 1975. H. F. Sockrider, Jr., Booth, Lockard, Jack, Pleasant &amp; LeSage, Shreveport, for plaintiff-applicant. C. R. Whitehead, Jr., Whitehead &amp; McCoy, Natchitoches, for defendant-respondent. *627 DIXON, Justice. This is an action for a judgment of separation from bed and board filed by Dana Berry. The only issue raised by this application is whether the trial court was a court of proper venue for this action. In separation and divorce cases venue is "jurisdictional" in nature and cannot be waived. C.C.P. 3941. The trial court determined that it was not a court of proper venue and therefore dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal affirmed this action. 300 So. 2d 246 (La.App.1974). We reverse. The Berrys were married on June 2, 1973 in Shreveport and immediately established their matrimonial domicile in Natchitoches. On July 10, 1973 the parties had an argument, first, concerning the husband's previous divorce, and then about the wife's refusal to go to bed with the husband. There had been arguments for a period of about three weeks. The husband became very depressed on this night, picked up a loaded shotgun and informed his wife that he was going to "end it all." The next day the wife left the matrimonial domicile and moved to Bossier Parish to the home of her parents. The Court of Appeal correctly stated the lawthat a wife has no domicile other than that of her husband (C.C. 39; C.C. 120), but may acquire a domicile separate from that of her husband if she is abandoned, or if her husband's misconduct justifies her leaving. Smith v. Smith, 43 La.Ann. 1140, 10 So. 248 (1891); Bush v. Bush, 232 La. 747, 95 So. 2d 298 (1957). The Court of Appeal also correctly stated that the husband's misconduct which would justify the wife's establishing a separate domicile is "substantially equivalent" to conduct which would constitute grounds for a separation. But the Court of Appeal held that the husband's misconduct in this case did not justify the wife's leaving. On the trial of the exception to jurisdiction and venue, only two witnesses were calledthe plaintiff and the defendant. The transcript of testimony is only fifteen pages long. The young couple's recitation of the events on the night preceding the separation is laconic. We repeat portions relevant. The husband testified: *628 "A Yes I did. *629 "A Yes. The law should not require one spouse to remain in the house with the other emotionally upset, brandishing a loaded shotgun, making threats to "end it all." It would be unrealistic to fail to recognize the fear and despair of an unarmed young woman, married less than six weeks, who found herself in such a situation. It is conduct of such a nature to render future cohabitation insupportable. Acts of physical cruelty are not the only kind of cruel treatment which will justify abandonment by the mistreated party. Moore v. Moore, 192 La. 289, 187 So. 670 (1939); Schneider v. Schneider, 214 La. 759, 38 So. 2d 732 (1949). Therefore the judgments of the courts below are reversed, the exceptions to the jurisdiction and venue are overruled, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings, at the cost of defendant. SUMMERS, Justice (dissenting). I would not disturb the finding of fact of the trial court and court of appeal. Accordingly, I dissent.