Croyle v. Croyle

• Decision Date: 20 December 1944
• Docket Number: 50.
• Citation: 40 A.2d 374,184 Md. 126
• Parties: CROYLE v. CROYLE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

40 A.2d 374

184 Md. 126

CROYLE v. CROYLE.

No. 50.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 20, 1944

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County; Charles C Marbury, Judge.

Suit by Salome B. Croyle against Ann Starkey Croyle, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Charles R. Croyle deceased, seeking to nullify on the ground of fraud a decree of divorce theretofore obtained by the deceased husband of plaintiff, and also the removal of defendant as administratrix of said decedent and substitution of plaintiff in her place. Decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Louis B. Arnold, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Bird H Dolby, of Mount Rainier, for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, MELVIN BAILEY, CAPPER, and HENDERSON, JJ.

MELVIN Judge.

This is a suit by the appellant to nullify, on the ground of fraud, a decree of divorce obtained in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on November 2, 1937, by her late husband, Charles R. Croyle, a Spanish-American War veteran who died in May, 1943. The avowed object of the suit is to obtain adjudication that the appellant, and not the appellee, is the 'lawful widow' of the said decedent and therefore entitled to property rights in his estate, particularly the right to a pension as the widow of a war veteran. The appellee's demurrer to this bill was sustained without leave to amend, and it is from this decree that the present appeal was taken.

The allegations of fact upon which the decision of the case rests are set out in the bill as follows: The plaintiff and the decedent (Croyle) were married on December 31, 1901, and as a result of said marriage five children were born, four of whom are now living and are of adult age. Following said marriage the parties lived in various places until 1924, when they finally established a permanent home in the District of Columbia. They lived together at the premises 231 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, D. C., until December 8, 1934, at which time, due to the cruel treatment of the decedent toward the plaintiff, they entered into a separation agreement, according to which the decedent moved away and agreed to contribute to the support and maintenance of the plaintiff and their children. At the time of this agreement decedent was employed at the Government Printing Office and also received a pension as a veteran of the Spanish-American War. He complied with said agreement from its date until January 15, 1938, when plaintiff received a copy of a purported divorce obtained by him on November 2, 1937, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.

The allegations contained in the bill filed by said decedent were fraudulent in that the bill alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff had deserted the decedent in July, 1934; whereas, in truth, the said separation was mutually agreed upon in writing as of December 8, 1934. The matrimonial domicile of the parties at the time of said proceedings was in the District of Columbia. At the time decedent filed said suit he knew that plaintiff was residing at 231 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, D. C., as evidenced by the testimony now on file in this Court, but notwithstanding the same he caused notice of his suit to be published in a Prince George's County newspaper which he had every reason to believe neither the plaintiff nor her friends would see, in order to conceal from her knowledge of the proceedings, and plaintiff did not receive any knowledge of said proceedings until two months after the decree of absolute divorce was signed. The testimony and the service had in connection with the procurement of the aforesaid divorce were fraudulently obtained. The bill further alleged that the decedent could easily have served her at her Washington address where she had resided for nearly twelve years prior to the filing of the suit.

Immediately upon hearing of said absolute divorce, plaintiff instituted proceedings against the decedent in the District of Columbia for a limited divorce and to set aside the decree obtained in Maryland. After a lengthy trial the Court made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law, as shown by the certified copy attached to the bill as a part thereof, marked 'Exhibit A,' and on November 10, 1939, the said District Court entered a judgment awarding the plaintiff a divorce a mensa et thoro and ordering the decedent to pay to her the sum of $25 a month as alimony, a certified copy of said judgment being attached to the bill as a part thereof marked 'Exhibit B.'

Among the findings of fact set forth in Exhibit A are the following: '(2) That the defendant, Charles R. Croyle, is guilty of cruelty in his conduct toward his wife, especially in view of his admitted association and misconduct with other women between the years 1928 and 1934; (3) * * * That although he (defendant) knew plaintiff's address, he made no effort to inform her of the pendency of said suit; that the plaintiff had no notice whatsoever of the pendency of this suit; that the grounds upon which he obtained the divorce in Maryland were fraudulent and untrue; * * * that the plaintiff, Salome Croyle, has always resided, and still resides, at 231 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., and never deserted the defendant herein.'

The allegation of the bill further show that the decedent complied with the order of the District Court, as aforesaid, and made regular payments until his death during the latter part of May, 1943. The plaintiff entered her suit for a limited divorce against decedent because she desired to protect any property rights she might have in any estate left by him, and particularly did she desire to protect her right to a pension as the widow of a Spanish-American War Veteran, should she survive her husband. She was advised by her counsel that the judgment in the District of Columbia superseded the Maryland decree, and further, the compliance of decedent with the order of the judgment of the Court in the District of Columbia fulled her into the assurance that her property rights were protected.

While the suit against decedent was pending in the District of Columbia, the defendant in the instant case, Ann S. Croyle, entered into a marriage with decedent and continued to live with him even after the judgment in the District Court. The decedent, Charles R. Croyle, died May 25, 1943, intestate, and, without notice to the plaintiff or her children, the said defendant filed a petition for letters of administration in the Orphans' Court for Prince George's County and was appointed administratrix on July 27, 1943. Subsequent to the death of her husband the plaintiff made claim with the Pension Bureau of the Veterans Administration of the United States for a pension as the widow of a deceased Spanish-American War veteran, but said claim was rejected on the ground that her husband's decree of divorce in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on November 2, 1937, was a bar to granting such claim until vacated or set aside by the Court granting the same.

The plaintiff has substantial property rights involved in this proceeding through her dower interest in the estate of the decedent, along with her claim for a pension, and such property rights would enure to her benefit but for the fraud that has been practiced, as therein detailed.

Having made the aforegoing allegations of fact, the plaintiff, thereupon, prayed the Court to vacate, set aside and nullify the aforesaid decree of absolute divorce obtained by the decedent on November 2, 1937, and to declare her to be the lawful widow of the said Charles R. Croyle, deceased. The other prayers of the bill are that the defendant, Ann S. Croyle, be removed as administratrix of said decedent and the plaintiff be substituted in her place, that the defendant be required to turn over to the plaintiff, as administratrix, all assets of the estate of the said decedent, and for further relief.

To this bill of complaint the appellee demurred generally, setting forth numerous grounds. However, only two of these are applicable to the determination of this appeal, inasmuch as the Chancellor's decision to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the bill, without leave to amend, was based on them, exclusively. As classified in his scholarly opinion appearing in the record, the two grounds are:

'(a) That this original bill for fraud does not set forth a case which entitled the plaintiff to any relief in equity'; and,

'(b), That the plaintiff is barred by laches and estoppel from relief in this proceeding'.

We cannot agree with the learned Chancellor in sustaining these two points, or either of them. Considering, first, the allegations of fraud, we find that the bill of complaint presents a factual situation which, if proved, clearly calls for the intervention of equity. The case before us on the record is that of a husband and wife, who, having lived together for over thirty-two years and having had five children, are forced to separate in December, 1934, because of the cruelty and misconduct of the husband. The innocent party, the wife, remained in their permanent home in Washington and the husband regularly made the payments required by the separation agreement for the support of his wife and children. Thereafter, in 1937, he is shown to have actually brought a suit for absolute divorce against the aggrieved wife charging her with having abandoned him in July, 1934, when, as a matter of fact, they had not separated at all until December, 1934, and then only because of his own misconduct, and when, moreover, she had continued to reside in the same home in Washington where they had lived together since 1924, and where she still resides.

Not...