Court Opinion

ID: 9686826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:07:58.335809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:26.097144
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(dissenting). In Hayes Construction Co. v. Silverthorn, 343 Mich 421, this Court told by descriptive phrasing why carefully prepared and recorded findings of fact — by trial judges and chancellors alike — should as a rule receive due acceptance here. What was said in Hayes should be applied to today’s fact review of another contested divorce case (P 429):
. “The hesitant word and the averted glance stand on a parity, on the printed page before us, with the positive assertion and the forthright expression. Not so in the mind and conscience of the nisi prius judge. He makes his appraisal of truth or falsity upon an evaluation of all the elements visible and audible, and while cases may occur in which his disregard for the clear preponderance is manifest even in these chambers, this case is not one of them.”
. Here the trial chancellor has watched and listened to the giving of typically contradictory and sometimes uncertain testimony, and then has recorded his findings and conclusions in a carefully drawn opinion consisting of 7 printed pages. In these circumstances I am loath to reverse on purely factual ground that the sum of adduced testimony does not establish any 1 or all of the grounds for divorce found below. Statutory cruelty “is an exceedingly elastic term” (see Hall v. Hall, 172 Mich 210, 213, quoted recently in Jaikins v. Jaikins, 370 Mich 488), and the presence or absence of proof thereof is primarily a matter for determination by the judge whose position is comparably better when the assigned task is that of.weighing testimony and appraising the attitude, character and veracity of the parties and witnesses sworn before him.
*7■ ' The principal point, urged helow and here by the defendant husband, is that the plaintiff wife legally condoned the acts and causes for divorce upon which she relies. On the face of the record such point is not without merit. However, with what I deem persuasive reasoning, Judge Stephens found and concluded:
“In the instant case, the proofs disclose misconduct on the part of the husband which consisted of abuse and threats resulting from excessive drinking which forced her, during July or early August, to leave their home in Conklin. Since establishing her residence in Lake county, she permitted the defendant to visit her. There was no evidence in the case indicating that the wife was interested in another man or that the separation was caused by such.' The defendant testified that he had requested her to. return to their home, which she refused to do, although his visits were permitted.
“The only logical conclusion which the court can reach after a careful study of the testimony is that the plaintiff was reluctant to see the marriage terminated, hoped that the defendant would better control his drinking and the resulting abuse of her and that eventually the parties might resume their former and full relationship. This would appear to be in keeping with the policy of the law to encourage the exercise of forbearance in the institution of actions for divorce. In the instant case, her efforts were unsuccessful as indicated by the argument which he started as a result of her refusal to entertain another couple in her trailer. Had she consistently refused sexual intercourse and displayed no affection for him during his visits, the possibilities of a reconciliation might have been considerably reduced.
“The court is of the opinion that, despite the several acts of intercourse, the plaintiff did not condone his previous acts of cruelty under the some*8■what unusual circumstances of this case and that she is entitled to a decree of absolute divorce.”
In my view Judge Stephens’ opinion is amply supported by sufficient proof. I therefore vote to affirm, without an award of costs.
O’Hara, J., concurred with Black, J.