Court Opinion

ID: 9825668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:54:37.010902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:16.019528
License: Public Domain

McHaney, J., (concurring). The only question presented by this appeal is whether appellee had been a bona fide resident of this state for ninety days within the meaning of our divorce statute when the divorce was granted him. I agree that he had not. It is undisputed that he and appellant had lived separate and apart for more than three years, and that he would be entitled to obtain a divorce in this state-on that ground, if he had established a bona fide residence here sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, and we all agree that he had not. My objection to the opinion of the majority is that it reflects upon appellee, who is a major in the armed forces of the United States, when it is wholly unnecessary to a decision of his case to do so. The critical and flamboyant language concerning his previous conduct is wholly beside the point, is obiter diota, and serves no useful purpose in a decision of the question of his residence. Whatever his previous conduct may have been, whether good or bad, does not disentitle him to a divorce under our three-year separation statute, if he is a resident of this state. I do not think it is the province of this court to criticize and castigate a litigant in this court when it is not necessary to do so in the opinion, even though the evidence may support such criticism. I, therefore, concur in the opinion of the majority holding appellee had not established a residence in this state. I am authorized to say Mr. Justice Holt and Mr. Justice G-reenhaw concur also.