Bedal v. Bedal
| Decision Date | 07 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 19961.,19961. |
| Citation | 2 S.W.2d 180 |
| Parties | BEDAL v. BEDAL. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Claude O. Pearcy, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by William Sherwood Bedal against Susan Dreas Bedal. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals; from order overruling motion to modify it, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Thompson & Thompson, of St. Louis, for William Sherwood Bedal.
R. M. Nichols, of St. Louis, for Susan Dreas Bedal.
This proceeding originated as an action for divorce, instituted by the husband, on January 7, 1926. After a trial of the issues involved in the divorce action proper, the court rendered its decree, granting a divorce to plaintiff, but awarding the custody of the two minor children of the parties to defendant, with the right in plaintiff to visit his children at all reasonable times, and further ordering that he pay to defendant the sum of $250 a month for their support. From such judgment and decree, defendant, after an unavailing motion for a new trial, duly perfected her appeal. Subsequently, a motion was filed by plaintiff to make said decree more definite, and to modify the same so that he might be given the right to have the children in his custody at certain stated times. After a hearing held on such motion, the same was overruled, from which order plaintiff was granted an appeal to this court. Thereafter, on stipulation of respective counsel, both appeals were consolidated, with the result that all matters in issue will be disposed of in this one opinion.
The petition alleged that, on July 28, 1909, the parties were united in marriage, and that, thereafter, they continued to live together as husband and wife until October 9, 1924, when the separation occurred. As grounds for divorce, plaintiff alleged that defendant, wholly disregarding her duties as his wife, had offered such indignities to him as to render his condition in life intolerable, in the following respects:
(1) That defendant had estranged the children from the plaintiff; that she had injected into their minds a dislike and distaste for him, for the purpose of lessening his control over them; that she had refused to allow plaintiff to exercise any parental control over the children; that she had dominated the children to such an extent that they had no friends among other children; and that she abused the plaintiff in the presence of the children, and had refused to let the children follow the advice or direction of plaintiff.
(2) That defendant had refused to be a companion to plaintiff, and to take part in the affairs of his life; that, in the presence of his children, she had continually abused the members of his family, and had led the children to believe that they were worthless; that she had refused to have social relationship with the members of plaintiff's family; that she had estranged the children from the mother of plaintiff, and likewise had tried to estrange plaintiff from her; and that defendant had refused to permit plaintiff's mother to come to his home, and had refused to let the children visit her except under protest.
(3) That for four or five years prior to the time plaintiff had left his home defendant had continuously nagged at and scolded him.
(4) That for weeks at a time defendant would refuse to speak to plaintiff, and would not eat at the same table with him; that she would make no attempt to reconcile her differences with him; and that the mental attitude of defendant towards plaintiff was that she was always in the right in everything that transpired.
(5) That defendant falsely told friends, acquaintances, and strangers that plaintiff refused to support her in adequate fashion, and refused to pay the bills, when, as a matter of fact, plaintiff always adequately supported defendant and the children; that she would hold bills back from the plaintiff, of which he had no knowledge, until long after the bills were due; and that she abused and nagged at plaintiff, and attempted to belittle him in the presence of his friends and acquaintances to the extent that his friends and acquaintances no longer visited at his home.
It was further alleged that, in January, 1924, the conduct of defendant had become so intolerable that plaintiff arranged to leave the house and live elsewhere, and so advised defendant; that she thereupon requested plaintiff not to leave; that plaintiff, in the hopes that defendant would alter her conduct towards him, did not carry out his intention; but that defendant, instead of improving her conduct thereafter, aggravated the same; that the conduct of defendant made plaintiff's condition intolerable, and impaired his health to such an extent that it was impossible for him to remain in his home; and that, on October 9, 1924, as aforesaid, plaintiff left his home, and since that time had not lived with defendant.
The further allegation was made that, since the separation, the plaintiff had left defendant and the children in possession of his house, and had supported them; that, since March, 1925, defendant had refused to permit the children to see plaintiff, and had made it impossible for him to have any personal communication with the children, or to direct their education; that she had continuously distilled dislike for plaintiff in the minds of the children, without justification or excuse; and that she had continuously made false statements to the children for the purpose of destroying their affection for plaintiff, or their desire to be with him.
It was shown by the petition that the children heretofore referred to were a son, William Sherwood, Jr., born August 22, 1910, and a daughter, Susan Farrington, born December 13, 1911.
Plaintiff prayed that he be divorced from the bonds of matrimony contracted with defendant, and that he might have the custody and care of the two children, and for such further orders and judgments from time to time as to the court should seem meet and proper.
In her answer, defendant admitted the fact of the marriage, and that the plaintiff had lived with her as her husband from and after the date of the marriage until the date of the separation aforesaid, but denied each and every other allegation in said petition contained.
Plaintiff is an attorney at law, and has been continuously engaged in the practice of his profession in the city of St. Louis, since 1905, save for the period of the late war, during which time he was commissioned in the judge advocate general's department in the army. He had known defendant for a number of years prior to the time they were married, and his mother, who is a practicing physician, had on several occasions been called to treat defendant in a professional capacity.
It appears that the bickering between plaintiff and defendant began almost at the inception of their married life, but did not reach its climax until after the birth of the children, at the dates mentioned in the petition. In fact, one of the most serious complaints registered by plaintiff in asking that the marriage ties be severed is that defendant constantly interfered in all attempts made by him to control and discipline the children. Such remonstrances were offered in the presence and hearing of the children, and had the effect of endearing the mother to them, but of lessening, and finally destroying, their respect and affection for their father. The result was that the childhood experiences of both son and daughter were kept within very narrow limits, and the son, particularly, was never taught to care for the games and athletic contests which are ordinarily the chief concern of the average, normal boy. That this is true is clearly shown by the fact that the son, on cross-examination, was frank to admit that he knew nothing of major league baseball, for instance, and but very little of the athletic activities of his own high school.
It was further shown that defendant sympathized but very little with plaintiff's early struggles in getting a foothold in his profession, but, instead, in the presence of the children, constantly complained that plaintiff was supporting his family inadequately, and, in fact, abused all of his relatives, and led the children to believe that they were worthless. Plaintiff, being an only son, had an unusually close attachment to his widowed mother, but defendant formed a violent dislike for her, spoke in derogatory fashion of her to plaintiff, and insisted that she be forewarned of his mother's intention to visit at their home, so that she might arrange to be away at the time.
Defendant's attitude towards plaintiff's immediate relatives is best shown by the fact that she refused to attend the funerals of his grandmother and uncle, or the wedding of a cousin, with all of whom he had always enjoyed an intimate relationship. Such conduct necessarily distressed and humiliated plaintiff greatly, and had the further effect of estranging the children from their paternal relatives, and particularly from their grandmother, whom they finally ceased visiting altogether.
It also appears that, for weeks at a time, often for no apparent reason, defendant would refuse to speak to plaintiff, and that frequently their home was the scene of violent altercations and quarrels. In fact, her disposition finally became so unpleasant that during the last two years they lived together, she frequently refused to eat at the same table with plaintiff.
Knowing that his friends and business associates were not welcome at his home, plaintiff invited them to visit him but infrequently, and at such times as they did come, the atmosphere would be such that they would be made to feel uncomfortable. Particular emphasis is laid by plaintiff upon his wife's neglect of and dislike shown to the senior member of his firm, the man largely responsible for his success in the practice of his chosen profession, upon the occasion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. Willis
...Trigg v. Trigg, 226 Mo.App. 284, 41 S.W.2d 583, 590(8, 9); Bowers v. Bowers, 225 Mo.App. 1197, 35 S.W.2d 39, 42-43(3); Bedal v. Bedal, Mo.App., 2 S.W.2d 180, 183-184(3)], including unexplained indiscretions with a Mr. H_____, to whom reference is made throughout the record, not shown to hav......
-
Andris v. Andris
... ... 391; Pickrel v. Pickrel, 86 ... S.W.2d 336; Latta v. Latta, 39 S.W.2d 563; ... McCormack v. McCormack, 39 S.W.2d 806; Bedal v ... Bedal, 2 S.W.2d 180; Long v. Long, 171 Mo.App ... 202; Wyrick v. Wyrick, 162 Mo.App. 723; Myer v ... Myer, 158 Mo.App. 299; Clark ... ...
-
L v. N
...915, 918(4).5 Paxton v. Paxton, Mo.App., 319 S.W.2d 280, 288(10); McKenzie v. McKenzie, Mo.App., 306 S.W.2d 588, 591(3); Bedal v. Bedal, Mo.App., 2 S.W.2d 180, 184(7); Zerega v. Zerega, Mo.App., 200 S.W. 700.6 Green v. Perr, Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 924, 927(1); Perr v. Perr, Mo.App., 205 S.W.2d......
-
Wells v. Wells
...best interests of the child as the dominant and most persuasive fact involved. Kistner v. Kistner, Mo.App., 89 S.W.2d 106; Bedal v. Bedal, Mo.App., 2 S.W.2d 180; Conrad v. Conrad, Mo.App., 296 S. W. 196; Sabourin v. Sabourin, Mo.App., 213 S.W. 490; Rone v. Rone, Mo.App., 20 S.W.2d Plaintiff......