Dotterweich v. Dotterweich

• Decision Date: 29 June 1938
• Docket Number: 68.
• Parties: DOTTERWEICH v. DOTTERWEICH.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

200 A. 523

174 Md. 697

DOTTERWEICH v. DOTTERWEICH.

No. 68.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 29, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Samuel K. Dennis Judge.

Suit for divorce a vinculo by John T. Dotterweich and Barbara E Dotterweich, who filed a cross-bill for permanent alimony. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

J Calvin Carney, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Paul M Higinbothom and Sophie K. Nordenholz, both of Baltimore, for appellee.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

SLOAN Judge.

The plaintiff, John T. Dotterweich, on August 10, 1937, filed a bill for divorce a vinculo against the defendant, Barbara E. Dotterweich, wherein he alleged that they were married June 16, 1903; that two children, both now of legal age, were born of the marriage; that more than three years before the filing of the bill the defendant deserted him and the separation has continued uninterruptedly ever since.

The defendant answered, admitting that she has not lived or cohabited with the plaintiff for more than three years, but denies that she deserted or abandoned him.

The defendant also filed a cross-bill, praying a decree of divorce a vinculo on the ground of three years abandonment. She alleged that he had an income of from $20 to $25 a week (now reduced to $16.16 a week), had recently bought a house in East Baltimore, and had other means, and prayed alimony, permanent and pendente lite. The defendant later filed a petition for leave to amend her cross-bill by striking out the prayer for a divorce a vinculo, and insert a prayer for permanent alimony, which was granted. The plaintiff in the original bill answered the cross-bill, denying that he had abandoned or deserted the wife without just cause or reason, and alleged in answer to the claim for alimony that they had entered into an agreement whereby she had released him from all claims for alimony, both pendente lite and permanent.

The plaintiff, appellee, on leave granted, amended the original bill, adding a paragraph alleging that the parties have voluntarily lived separate and apart, without any cohabitation for five consecutive years prior to the filing of the bill of complaint. The charge that she had abandoned him more than three years before remained in the amended bill. The amended bill was answered, the wife admitting the separation for more than five years, but denied that they mutually and voluntarily separated, and said 'she always wanted to live with her husband and had from time to time made efforts to become reconciled, but he always spurned and denied her overtures to him.'

The plaintiff testified that he and his wife were married June 16, 1903, and lived together happily for fifteen years 'and after fifteen years she didn't want...