Crittenden v. Crittenden
| Citation | 168 S.E.2d 115,210 Va. 76 |
| Parties | Evelyn Warx Friend CRITTENDEN et al. v. Henry T. CRITTENDEN. |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1969 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Jerrold G. Weinberg, Norfolk (Philip L. Russo, Stackhouse & Weinberg, Norfolk, on brief), for appellants.
Joseph E. Baker, Norfolk, for appellee.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON and HARRISON, JJ.
The question involved in this appeal is whether a two-year separation of husband and wife resulting from the commitment of the latter for mental incompetence is ground for divorce under Code, § 20--91(9).
The question arose when Henry T. Crittenden, the complainant, filed a bill of complaint against Evelyn Warx Friend Crittenden, the defendant, and her committee, Robert C. Stackhouse. The bill alleged that on May 19, 1950, the defendant was adjudged mentally incompetent and was committed to Eastern State Hospital, where she was still confined. The bill further alleged that the complainant and the defendant had lived separate and apart since May, 1950, without interruption and without cohabitation. The bill prayed for a divorce from the bond of matrimony on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for more than two years.
A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the defendant. The guardian ad litem and the defendant's committee filed demurrers to the bill asserting that the complainant was not entitled to a divorce because of the mental incompetence of the defendant. The demurrers were overruled, and answers were filed by the guardian ad litem and the committee.
The cause was referred to a commissioner in chancery who heard the complainant's evidence. That evidence showed that the parties were married January 1, 1941, and had lived together until the defendant was committed on May 19, 1950. The evidence further showed that the defendant had been confined continuously at Eastern State Hospital since that date.
The commissioner filed a report recommending that a divorce be awarded the complainant on the ground of the two-year separation of the parties. Exceptions were filed to the report on behalf of the defendant. The court overruled the exceptions and entered a final decree awarding the complainant a divorce from the bond of matrimony. We granted the defendant and her committee an appeal.
Code, § 20--91 provides as follows:
'A divorce from the bond of matrimony may be decreed:
It is contended on behalf of the defendant that because her separation from the complainant resulted from her commitment for mental incompetence, there existed no ground for divorce under Code, § 20--91(9). The complainant contends, on the other hand, that the Code section is without qualification and that the ground for divorce there provided is not dependent upon 'fault or provocation, or any act or omission of the defendant.' The complainant urges, therefore, that he is entitled to a divorce on the ground of separation for two years notwithstanding the defendant's incompetence.
The question now before us is a novel one. While we have had occasion previously to apply the provisions of Code, § 20--91(9), those earlier divorce cases did not involve the mental incompetence of one of the parties.
It is true, as the complainant asserts, that in Canavos v. Canavos, 205 Va. 744, 747, 139 S.E.2d 825, 827, 14 A.L.R.3d 495 (1965), we said that the object of the legislature in enacting Code, § 20--91(9) was to permit the granting of a divorce to either spouse 'regardless of fault' when the parties have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hooker v. Hooker
...party, but awarded Mrs. Hooker temporary alimony and counsel fees. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. In Crittenden v. Crittenden, 210 Va. 76, 168 S.E.2d 115 (1969), we held that a husband was not entitled to a divorce from his insane wife under Code § 20--91(9) because we construed t......
-
Shaw v. Shaw
...an intent to make mental incompetency or insanity a ground for divorce. The Supreme Court of Virginia in the case of Crittenden v. Crittenden, 210 Va. 76, 168 S.E.2d 115, was confronted with an identical question under its divorce statute. The logic of that opinion is, we think, irrefutable......