Godfrey v. Godfrey, 13

• Citation: 347 Mich. 130,79 N.W.2d 476
• Decision Date: 06 December 1956
• Docket Number: No. 13,13
• Parties: Joe GODFREY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Elsie GODFREY, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 476

79 N.W.2d 476

347 Mich. 130

Joe GODFREY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Elsie GODFREY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 6, 1956.

Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, by John H. Vander Wal, Grand Rapids, for defendant and appellant.

Julius J. Herscher, Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except BOYLES, J.

SHARPE, Justice.

Defendant Elsie Godfrey appeals from a decree granting a divorce to plaintiff Joe Godfrey. Defendant urges that the plaintiff has not established grounds for divorce and that there is no reason for the granting of a divorce to plaintiff or granting plaintiff any relief whatsoever. She asks this Court to dismiss plaintiff's bill of complaint.

These parties were married September 15, 1935, at New Orleans, Louisiana, and cohabited for approximately 19 years. No children were born to this marriage. Defendant has a daughter by a previous marriage. These parties moved to Grand Rapids several years ago, and in January, 1948, they bought a home on land contract.

Plaintiff's bill of complaint filed September 29, 1954, alleges:

'During the married life of the parties, the plaintiff has worked steadily and continuously. They purchased a home, which has been the residence of the parties, located at 127 Canton Street, S. W., for the sum of $6500.00, upon which there is a balance now due of approximately $2300.00, with payments of $55.00 per month. In addition, the plaintiff spent the sum of $1200.00 for a new furnace in this property; $479.00 for new insulating siding, and $150.00 for a hot water heater.

'When this property had been placed in good condition, and the plaintiff had done everything to it that defendant wanted, the defendant ceased to have any interest in the plaintiff. For the past three years, the defendant has refused to live with the plaintiff as husband and wife.

'Defendant would go away from the home of the parties, and stay away 1:30 a. m. or 2:00 o'clock a. m., without telling the plaintiff where she was going, or, upon, return, where she had been.

'Finally, on or about June 15, 1954, the defendant told the plaintiff to get out of the home of the parties.

'During the time that the parties lived together, the plaintiff paid all bills, and while the defendant was working and earning good wages as an employee of Blodgett Hospital, she kept all of her money, and put it in the bank. In addition the defendant has income from the rental of at least one room or more, in the home of the parties. * * *'

In her answer defendant alleges that:

'This defendant further shows that the plaintiff voluntarily left the home of the parties in June of 1954, assumed no responsibility of the home, made no payments on the indebtednesses of the parties, and refused to live with this defendant. That thereafter in August, while this defendant was working, the plaintiff came back into the home, made no explanation of his absence, offered to make no payments on any of the obligations of the parties, and at that time this defendant ordered the plaintiff to leave. This defendant denies that she ordered plaintiff to leave on June 15th, but states that plaintiff voluntarily left the home at that time.

'Further answering said paragraph, this defendant denies that she has stayed away from the home until between 1:30 and 2:00 a. m. * * *'

From the testimony it appears that defendant is now employed at a hospital in Grand Rapids and has been employed most of her married life. It also appears that defendant's daughter, son-in-law, and four children lived with these parties during their married life. The daughter is now divorced and she and the children live with defendant and depend on defendant for their support. While the son-in-law lived in the home he contributed $25 a month toward the monthly payment on the home, but the testimony does not disclose how he otherwise contributed toward the support of his family.

Plaintiff testified that the money for the down-payment of the home came from money he and defendant earned and saved; that defendant's attitude toward him changed after he had the house all fixed up; that defendant would visit friends in the evening and would not return home until 12;30 or 1 o'clock in the morning; that defendant's daughter prepared all his meals; that defendant refused to talk to plaintiff; that defendant contributed nothing from her income toward the home or bills; that defendant refused to sleep with him; that he supported defendant's daughter almost all her life; that the son-in-law contributed $25 a month toward payments on the home; that he 'got tired' the way defendant was acting and left home in July, 1954; that he remained away from home approximately a month and half and did not contribute anything to defendant's support; that in August he attempted to move back home but defendant refused to take him back.

Defendant testified that she invested $700 that had been saved for her daughter's education for the down-payment on the home; that this money was sent to her by a brother in the army; that the same brother contributed $250 to the down-payment on the home; that from September, 1948, to December, 1948, plaintiff was out of work and she and the son-in-law made the payments on the home and supported the family; that in February, 1954, plaintiff made a telephone call to a woman in Louisiana that he used to go with, and about that time they started having difficulty getting along; that plaintiff quit speaking to defendant in April, 1954, because she would not give him any of her unemployment compensation money; that in May 1954, plaintiff asked defendant for $1,000 so he could return to Louisiana; that in May, 1954, plaintiff began to stay out nights--he would come home from work in the afternoon, take a bath and walk out the door and would not return until the following morning; that when he got his vacation check in June he left home and she did not know his whereabouts; that on various occasions defendant saw plaintiff in the company of other women that plaintiff refused to go out with defendant socially; that defendant refused to let plaintiff return to the home because he didn't consult with her before moving back nor give her any reason for his actions; that she wanted plaintiff to come back, and that she didn't desire a divorce.

The trial court granted plaintiff a divorce and in an opinion stated:

'The above action was brought on for hearing on April 29, 1955, and it is apparent that the parties had been separated since May 1954. They were married in September, 1935, and therefore, had cohabited for approximately nineteen years. It was found from the testimony submitted that the conduct of the defendant toward the plaintiff has...