Bochenek v. Bochenek
| Decision Date | 17 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 55552,55552 |
| Citation | 5 Ill.App.3d 65,283 N.E.2d 95 |
| Parties | Jean BOCHENEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward BOCHENEK, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Schwartz & Zaban, Chicago, Seymour Zaban, Chicago, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant.
Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce and other relief on January 11, 1969, alleging that defendant was guilty of extreme and repeated mental cruelty toward her without provocation on her part. Defendant filed an answer denying the grounds alleged in the complaint, and trial was had as a contested matter without a jury. At the close of plaintiff's case defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for want of equity because of failure to establish a prima facie case was allowed. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff testified that she and the defendant were married in July 1941 and that a girl and a boy were born of the marriage, aged 23 and 20 respectively at the time of the trial. She resided in a three-flat apartment building owned by her and defendant, located on South Homan Avenue in Chicago, for a period of nineteen years. Plaintiff stated that on several occasions prior to 1959 defendant told her, 'Why don't you pack your bags and get out?' and that, as a result, she moved into an apartment in the basement of the building. She stated that although they lived in separate apartments, she and defendant cohabited from time to time and she cooked his meals.
Plaintiff testified that in the fall of 1964 she and defendant had an argument in a cocktail lounge and that she left and walked home alone. She stated that the defendant arrived home before her and locked the door so that it became necessary for her to break the glass in the door in order to gain entrance to the building. She testified that the defendant was waiting for her, an argument ensued, he struck her in the head, and she fell, losing consciousness for a time. Plaintiff further testified that defendant physically accosted her about two months later. She stated that defendant continuously berated her, stating that 'he shouldn't have married beneath his level and there wasn't a brain between the three of us, meaning the two children and myself.' Plaintiff testified that these statements depressed her.
In October 1968 plaintiff informed the defendant that she wished to purchase a new automobile and that she wished to use their old automobile as a trade-in. She testified that her equity in the old vehicle was in excess of seventy-five per cent, but that title to that vehicle was in the defendant's name 'for insurance purposes.' She stated that the defendant initially told her 'he didn't care one way or another' whether she purchased the new automobile, but that defendant thereafter refused to transfer the title to the old automobile for purposes of the trade-in. She testified that she was thereby forced to re-negotiate the contract for the purchase of the new automobile with the dealership, to her embarrassment. Entered into evidence was a letter from defendant to plaintiff regarding the proposed purchase and transfer of title, berating plaintiff and employing obscene language. Plaintiff testified that such actions and language on defendant's part made her feel 'put down' and made her further feel that she had no rights of ownership in any property that she and defendant owned and to which she had contributed throughout the years of the marriage.
Plaintiff further testified that sometime in 1966 she installed gas heat in the basement apartment and that she paid for it with her own funds. She testified that she worked during the day, and that defendant, who worked evenings and nights, would enter the basement apartment and lower the heat. She stated that when she arrived home from work during the winter months it would take an hour or more to warm up the apartment, during which time she was forced to wear her coat and boots.
Plaintiff testified that as a result of defendant's actions, she developed a condition of extreme nervousness and that she consulted Dr. Frank Yanez in 1967. She stated that she experienced spasms in her stomach and extreme headaches, and that in September 1968 she developed an ear condition and was referred by Dr. Yanez to a specialist. The specialist advised the plaintiff that her ear condition was due to her nervous condition, which caused small blood vessels in the ear area to rupture, in turn causing the earaches. She stated that none of the nervous problems treated by either doctor was the result of an injury or sickness.
Plaintiff further testified that in January 1969 she had an argument with the defendant, during the course of which he accused her of ruining their children and of being responsible for their son's leaving high school. She stated that she became upset and cried, and that she became so nervous that dizziness ensued, she lost consciousness and fell, injuring her spine.
Plaintiff testified that she becomes nervous when in the presence of her husband, that she fears him because she never knows what he will do or say, and that the two children also fear him. She stated that she was forty-seven years of age, that she was not experiencing menopause, and that she in fact continued to have a regular menstrual cycle.
Plaintiff's daughter, Lorraine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Navik
...before us. In Fisher v. City of Aledo, 23 Ill.App.3d 190, 192, 318 N.E.2d 305, it was held that it was not. But see Bochenek v. Bochenek, 5 Ill.App.3d 65, 68, 283 N.E.2d 95, where the Pedrick rule was suggested as an analogous Our courts have spoken expressly in terms of such evidence as ma......
-
Rey v. Rey
...31 Ill.App.2d 72, 77, 175 N.E.2d 659) which standing alone supports the claim, the motion should be denied. In Bochenek v. Bochenek (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 65, 68, 283 N.E.2d 95, the Pedrick rule (Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co. (1967), 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504) is suggested as an an......