Garman v. Garman

• Decision Date: 27 April 1943
• Docket Number: 2240
• Citation: 136 P.2d 517,59 Wyo. 1
• Parties: GARMAN v. GARMAN
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

136 P.2d 517

59 Wyo. 1

GARMAN v. GARMAN

No. 2240

Supreme Court of Wyoming

April 27, 1943

APPEAL from District Court, Goshen County; SAM M. THOMPSON, Judge.

Divorce action by L. C. Garman against Helen Garman. From an adverse decree, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

For the appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Everett Taylor, of Torrington, Wyoming.

This is a divorce action. The plaintiff's testimony was mainly directed toward defendant's treatment of his daughters when he was absent and of which he has only hearsay knowledge. It is insufficient to support the decree. Kamp v. Kamp, 36 Wyo. 310; Bonham v. Bonham, 25 Wyo 449; Mahoney v. Mahoney, 43 Wyo. 160; Schultz v Schultz, 46 Wyo. 121; 12 R. C. L. 253, 337. Corroborative evidence is required to support a decree of divorce. The sum of $ 500.00 allowed defendant from the property of the parties is not a fair and equitable division. The statute requires an equitable division having regard to the respective merits of the case and the condition in which the parties will be left by a divorce. Section 35-118, R. S 1931; Closson v. Closson, 30 Wyo., page 8. This case should be remanded with directions to enter judgment for adequate compensation for defendant's expenses and attorney's fees occasioned by this appeal.

For the respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of J. L. Sawyer and Geo. P. Sawyer, of Torrington, Wyoming.

The only points before the court in this appeal are the sufficiency of the evidence and the amount of money awarded the appellant. The cases cited by counsel for appellant are as favorable to the respondent as the appellant. We direct the court's attention to the following cases: Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 36 Wyo. 379; Webster v. Webster (Wash.) 26 P. 864; O'Day v. O'Day, 47 Wyo. 22, and cases cited; Pinney v. Pinney (Utah) 245 P. 329. We submit that the law as set forth in the above decisions of this court apply to the evidence as the record in this case and support the decree of the court below in granting a divorce and the division of property.

RINER, Justice. KIMBALL, Ch. J., and BLUME, J., concur.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

This is a proceeding questioning by direct appeal the correctness of a judgment of the district court of Goshen County in an action brought therein by the plaintiff, L. C. Garman, to obtain a divorce from his wife, Helen Garman, the defendant. The parties hereto will be subsequently mentioned herein as designated in the trial court. The disposition of the cause below resulted in a general finding in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and a decree of divorce as prayed by plaintiff's amended petition. This decree awarded the defendant the sum of five hundred dollars in lieu of all her rights in plaintiff's property and also a stated sum for attorney fees and suit money; the decree additionally awarded the defendant the furniture in the farm home which had been purchased with her money.

The parties above mentioned were married at Kearney, Nebraska, April 11, 1937. There are no children as a consequence of the marriage. However, both plaintiff and defendant had been previously married and the former had two children, girls, through his first marriage and the latter one child, also a girl. These children were all in their teens at the time plaintiff and defendant were married. The disagreements and quarrels between this husband and wife seem to a considerable degree to have grown out of the conduct and management of these children. Plaintiff is a farmer living in Goshen County, his farm being located southwest of the town of Torrington, Wyoming. The defendant before this marriage was a stenographer and evidently not accustomed to farm life. Though married on the date above mentioned, she did not come to Wyoming to live with her husband until the month of August, 1938, but continued to work in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska.

It is claimed for appellant that the judgment of the district court is not supported by the evidence in the case, and that there was lack of corroboration as required by the statute (W. R. S. 1931, § 35-131); also that the money awarded to the defendant by the trial court was insufficient.

The law of Wyoming provides in Section 35-108 W. R. S. 1931 that:

"A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties, or one of them reside, on the application of the aggrieved party by petition, in either of the following cases: * * *"

"Sixth--When one of the parties has been guilty of extreme cruelty to the other;" * * *

"Eighth--When either party shall offer such indignities to the other, as shall render his or her condition intolerable; * * *"

The amended petition of plaintiff embodies two causes of action, the first one relying upon the sixth clause of the statute aforesaid, and the second one on the eighth above quoted.

Section 35-118 W. R. S. 1931 provides:

"In granting a divorce, the court shall also make such disposition of the property of the parties, as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and to the condition in which they will be left by such divorce, and to the party through whom the property was acquired, and to the burdens imposed upon it, for the benefit of the wife and children, and the court may also decree to the wife reasonable alimony out of the estate of the husband having regard for his ability, and to effectuate the purposes aforesaid, may order so much of his real estate or the rents and profits thereof, as is necessary to the assigned and set out to the wife for life, or may decree a specific sum to be paid by him to her, and use all necessary legal and equitable processes to carry its decrees into effect."

Concerning this statute this court has enunciated the rule by which we think we should be governed on reviewing judgments involving the disposition of property rights of the parties in divorce actions. In Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 36 Wyo. 379, 256 P. 76, we said:

"It is conceded that in making a division of property under the statute the trial court exercises a discretion. There are no hard and fast rules to control its action. The statute does not require an equal division. A just and equitable division is as likely as not to be unequal. The decision of the trial court should not be disturbed, except on clear grounds, as that court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge of the respective merits and needs of the parties. * * *" See also O'Day v. O'Day, 47 Wyo. 22, 30 P.2d 488.

Other decisions of this court which we think should be kept in mind as of material assistance in disposing of the instant case are:

Burt v. Burt, 48 Wyo. 19, 41 P.2d...