Court Opinion

ID: 9711331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:29:33.698306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.886418
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
(dissenting). This appeal presents a question of first impression in this state. It has been considered, however, by the courts of other jurisdictions, and, as appears from the annotation in 138 A. L. R. 367, a majority of those courts have held that a decree for a limited divorce does not bar a subsequent action by the same plaintiff for an absolute divorce founded upon the same acts which were offered as grounds for the first decree. The author of the note observes that “there is only scant authority in support of a contrary rule.”
True, we are not bound by the decisions of foreign tribunals, but we may accept them as an aid in determining an original proposition, particularly where the reasoning upon which they are based is persuasive. Obviously, the reasoning, upon which the cases of other jurisdictions which hold that the first action is not a bar to the second is based, does not persuade the majority.
*617They persuade me, however, and therefore I must respectfully dissent. It would be presumptuous for me to attempt to elaborate upon what the courts have said with respect to the question or to attempt to improve upon the language used by them in expressing reasons for their conclusions. Therefore, I content myself with quoting their language.
A wife had obtained a decree of limited divorce on the ground of adultery and subsequently brought an action in a Scottish court for an absolute divorce founded upon the same acts of adultery. The husband’s defense was that the first decree was a bar to the second action, and the court said:
. . . the two remedies are collateral — they are directed to distinct objects and have totally different effects; and therefore, the circumstances of this lady [plaintiff] pursuing a remedy for the purpose of obtaining protection against being compelled to cohabit with her husband, either during a given time, or an indefinite time, is quite consistent with the proceedings which she afterwards instituted to dissolve the marriage.” Geils v. Geils, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 255, 275.
“The practice of granting to married people a decree of separation from bed and board forever, while authorized by our statute, is an anachronism. It is authorized in only a few states. It breaks up the home, deprives the parties of the benefits of the marriage relation, yet subjects them to its restrictions. During the continuance of the operation of such a decree both the parties are married and yet separated. They may not lawfully remarry and they may not lawfully cohabit together. As a temporary expedient calculated to bring the parties together again, such a decree of separation may be useful. As a method of penalizing an erring husband, it may be justified. But as the establishment of a status to continue “forever,” it has little to commend it as a matter of public policy (see Nelson, Divorce and Separation, sec. 1022), and the court should hesitate long to hold that such a decree once entered is immutable, unless the mandate of the law to that effect is unequivocal.
“We think there is no such mandate in our statute. The decree may be granted only at the suit of the wife. G. S. 1913, *618sec. 7134. It is a mere suspension of the marriage relation as to certain rights and relations. The purpose is to afford protection to the wife and to hold the marriage status, and, with it, the prospect of eventual reconciliation. The statute was not intended to abridge the law on the subject of absolute divorce nor to restrict its operation and a decree of separation is not a bar to a suit for divorce on grounds subsequently accruing. Evans v. Evans, 43 Minn. 31, 44 N. W. 524, 7 L. R. A. 448. The question whether such a decree is a bar to divorce on the same ground has not been decided in this state, but, in the jurisdictions where it has arisen the holding has generally been that a decree of separation is not a bar to divorce on the same ground; that the two remedies are not inconsistent and the doctrine of election does not apply; that the two have different objects and effect, one is in a sense ancillary to the other, the cause of action is not the same, and there is therefore no merger of the cause of action.” Kunse v. Kunse, 153 Minn. 5, 6, 189 N. W. 447.
Nor is there any such mandate as the Minnesota court refers to in our statutes which makes a decree for a limited divorce immutable.
The majority looks to sec. 247.07 (7), Stats., as support for its conclusion, and reads out of its provisions a legislative declaration that in a situation such as we have here the first decree is a bar to the second except under the circumstances in the statute set forth, that is, that only where the separation has continued for five years pursuant to a decree for limited divorce and there has been no good-faith request during that period by one of the parties to the other for a reconciliation may an absolute divorce be granted. I cannot agree that the statute may be so construed.
The relief there provided adds to the grounds upon which an absolute divorce may be had, but does not provide that only upon the grounds there stated may an absolute divorce be granted following a decree a mensa et thoro.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Broadfoot concurs in this dissent.