Court Opinion

ID: 9728464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:08:44.477027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.830807
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority opinion that defendant’s request for plaintiff to move back to the family home is not alone sufficient to satisfy the requirements of condo-nation.1 However, when added to the continuing marital relations, then condonation would ordinarily be established. 24 Am. Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 214 (1966). Cruelty is generally a course of conduct rather than a single act, and so a continuance of sexual cohabitation after acts of cruelty cannot be considered as condonation in the sense in which it would be after an act of adultery, 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 216 (1966), unless accompanied by an express agreement to condone under SDCL 25-4-23.2 There was no such condo-nation in this case.

. SDCL 25-4-22 provides in part:
The following requirements are necessary to condonation:
(1) A knowledge on the part of the condoner of the facts constituting the cause of divorce;
(2) Reconciliation and remission of the offense by the injured party;
(3) Restoration of the offending party to all marital rights.

. SDCL 25-4-23 provides:
Where the cause of divorce consists of a course of offensive conduct, or arises in cases of cruelty from excessive acts of ill-treatment, which may aggregately constitute the offense, cohabitation, or passive endurance, or conjugal kindness shall not be evidence of condonation of any of the acts con-
*523stituting such cause, unless accompanied by an express agreement to condone. In such cases, condonation can be made only after the cause of divorce has become complete, as to the acts complained of.