Court Opinion

ID: 9539378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:03:21.37488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:47.298316
License: Public Domain

Robb, J.
(dissenting): I am unable to agree with the majority opinion that it was not reversible error for the trial court to fail to set forth the specific ground, or grounds, upon which the judgment was based for the reason that I think the words of the statute (G. S. 1949, 60-1516) providing for an action in favor of the wife for alimony only, without the granting of a.divorce, are clear in that she is required to allege and prove “any of the causes for which a divorce may be granted.”
The eleven causes for divorce recognized in this jurisdiction are set out in G. S. 1959 Supp., 60-1501. I believe the only appropriate rule in divorce cases, or in those for alimony only (sometimes denominated separate maintenance) is the one applied in Perkins v. Perkins, 154 Kan. 73, 114 P. 2d 804, as follows:
“In an action for alimony, before the trial court may make an award the plaintiff must plead and prove, and the trial court must find that a cause exists for which a divorce may he granted, but where a divorce is denied it may, for good cause shown, make an order for the equitable division and disposition of the property of the parties.” (Syl. If 1.) (My emphasis.)
The above rule was restated in Paul v. Paul, 183 Kan. 201, 326 P. 2d 283, Syl. ¶ 1, and has had application in our law as far back as in Allen v. Allen, 101 Kan. 622, 168 Pac. 675, where the trial court, in denying alimony, as to grounds or causes for the action made the following finding of fact No. IX:
“The plaintiff’s voluntary abandonment and separation from the defendant was not wholly without fault on her part.” (p. 624.)
As a result, the trial court made conclusion of law No. II as follows:
*491“Under the facts presented in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything from the defendant for separate maintenance.” (p. 624.)
In the court’s discussion it was stated:
“With the facts established, the second conclusion of law was inevitable. There was no extreme cruelty, because none is found, and there was no gross neglect of duty, because none is found.” (p. 624.)
As can be seen from the provisions of G. S. 1959 Supp., 60-1501, were a wife inclined to allege as many as four grounds (or even more) and the trial court would make such a finding as we have in our present case, the presumption would be that the wife had proved one or all of the grounds. This court, in effect, has made a finding for the trial court that tire trial court did not make — either because it could not, or merely that it overlooked doing so.
It is my opinion that this case should be reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court that a specific finding be made as to what ground, or what cause, the court found plaintiff was guilty of which would justify granting defendant judgment for alimony, or a new trial should be granted.
Fatzer, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.