Court Opinion

ID: 9737182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:18:21.714502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:57.073751
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
On October 31, 1966, Aliene Fletcher took up her residence in Ainsworth, Brown County, Nebraska, and on the same day filed a petition for divorce on the ground of physical and mental cruelty. On April 24, 1967, Glen Fletcher filed a general denial to plaintiff’s petition: On April 25, 1967, defendant filed an amended answer alleging that plaintiff had condoned the acts of cruelty *554set out in her petition. No reply was ever filed. On November 22, 1966, to December 29, 1966, the parties cohabited together as husband and wife, during which period they purchased a new home in Grand Island and placed their five children in school in that city. There is no question that the parties cohabited as husband and wife for 5 weeks in November and December 1966. The plaintiff contends that this cohabitation was not voluntary which is incredible on its face. The condonation was complete. Wetenkamp v. Wetenkamp, 140 Neb. 392, 299 N. W. 491; Wright v. Wright, 153 Neb. 18, 43 N. W. 2d 424; Sewell v. Sewell, 160 Neb. 173, 69 N. W. 2d 549. During the pendency of a divorce suit, the parties must live apart. Ellis v. Ellis, 115 Neb. 685, 214 N. W. 300; Wright v. Wright, supra. A complete condonation restores the marriage relation to the same extent as if a divorce suit had never been filed. A pending action for divorce after condonation is abated and, I submit, it is subject to dismissal. Collins v. Collins, 194 La. 446, 193 So. 702.
I find no fault with the rule stated in many cases that condonation is forgiveness for the past upon condition that the wrong shall not be repeated, and it is dependent upon future good conduct and a repetition of the offense revives the wrong condoned. See Hodges v. Hodges, 154 Neb. 178, 47 N. W 2d 361. But in order to1 revive the wrong condoned, a new petition must be filed alleging the repetition of the wrongs condoned and the allegations of fact arising subsequent to the condonation showing the repetition of the acts giving rise to the reviver of such prior wrongs.
“It has been held that there must be some corroboration of the subsequent act, Henry v. Henry, 11 O. Dec. Rep. 781; 29 W. Law Bui. 115, but the prior acts are supporting testimony to the subsequent acts, Kleinhenz v. Kleinhenz, supra, and it is not necessary that such a subsequent act be of such a nature as would support a divorce action of itself. If such an act shows a breach *555of the conditional forgiveness, then all acts complained of, whether previously condoned or not, may be alleged. * * * If the condonation takes place during the pendency of the suit the cause of action abates but may be revived in the same action where subsequent acts of aggression have taken place by the filing of a supplemental petition. * * * Not only have the courts of Ohio seemed to follow the view that a single resumption of marital intercourse shall constitute condonation, but this court feels that such a decision is proper. During recent years, because of a liberalization of our general beliefs it has become easier for the parties to obtain a divorce. Purely as a moral proposition, this court does not feel that parties should be allowed to maintain sexual relations and at the same, time seek a divorce as the two acts are completely incompatible. The court feels that a single voluntary act of marital intercourse, where the injured party is in full knowledge of the other party’s aggressions, shall act as a condonation of all aggressions up to that time. This can work no hardship upon the parties as the decisions of Ohio have clearly held that such an act must be voluntary and with full knowledge and that the foregiveness is conditional. This latter rule protects a party that might resume relations following acts of cruelty or habitual drunkenness, for if there is a breach of the implied condition, even though the act constituting the breach is not enough to constitute a grounds for divorce, not only that act but all previous acts of aggression may be alleged and proved.” Huffine v. Huffine, 36 Ohio O. 56, 74 N. E. 2d 764. In my judgment, the foregoing decision correctly states the law as it has heretofore existed in this state. I submit that if the parties to a divorce are. friendly enough during its pendency to engage in sexual relations, they are friendly enough to continue the marriage relation.
There is no pleading in this case, alleging such facts as would overcome the pleaded and proven condonation. It *556is fundamental that a judgment to be valid must be supported by the, pleadings. State ex rel. Connolly v. Haverly, 62 Neb. 767, 87 N. W. 959; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Evertson, 153 Neb. 854, 46 N. W. 2d 489; Muller Enterprises, Inc. v. Gerber, 178 Neb. 463, 133 N .W. 2d 913.
The result is that plaintiff is granted a divorce on a petition that has abated and, even if it could be amended to state a cause of action, it was not done. No affirmative defense to the plea and proof of condonation were alleged, and consequently the pleadings do not support the judgment. I submit that the judgment of the district court should be reversed and the opinion of this court is in error.
There are, serious questions of public policy involved in this case. This court has consistently held that cohabitation by the parties pending divorce proceedings will not be permitted. The cases plainly infer that where cohabitation does occur the cause of action is abated and the petition for divorce will be dismissed. The public interest will not be subserved unless this be the rule. Public decency will not be maintained and fraud and collusion will not be deterred in this type of case if the rule against cohabitation is not effectively enforced. It is not enough to merely give whimsical effect to the announced rule of this court requiring the parties to a divorce action to live apart during its pendency. Nor is it enough to ignore such issues when they are properly raised on appeal as they are here. I submit that the law is being ignored and the public policy of the state circumvented by the treatment given the appeal by the majority. The case should be, reversed and dismissed.
Smith and Newton, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissent.