Haynes v. Haynes

Citation446 P.2d 749,202 Kan. 83
Decision Date09 November 1968
Docket NumberNo. 45142,45142
PartiesDorothy E. HAYNES, Appellee, v. T. M. HAYNES, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Syllabus by the Court

The record in a divorce action is examined and it is held there is substantial evidence sufficiently corroborated to support a judgment granting a divorce to plaintiff.

Ernest J. Rice, Topeka, and Marlin S. Casey, Glenn D. Cogswell, Gerald L. Goodell, Wayne T. Stratton, Robert E. Edmonds, Arthur E. Palmer, Thomas E. Wright, and Chester A. Arterburn, Jr., Topeka, on the briefs, for appellant.

Louis F. Eisenbarth, Topeka, for appellee.

KAUL, Justice.

Defendant-appellant, T. M. Haynes, has appealed from a judgment granting a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty to plaintiff-appellee, Dorothy E. Haynes.

Plaintiff was a widow, sixty years of age, and defendant a widower, sixty-four years of age, at the time of their marriage on April 2, 1966. After living together for about three months the parties separated and plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 1966. Plaintiff filed a bill of particulars with the trial court and defendant filed his answer in the form of a general denial praying that a divorce be denied.

Defendant offered no evidence at the trial and after hearing plaintiff's evidence the trial court announced its findings; pertinent portions of which we quote:

'All right, gentlemen, I don't have any problem with this lawsuit and this is the finding of the Court, that the defendant did not provide a home for the wife, he failed to fulfill his promises in this regard, he lived in her home instead and also failed to provide money in keeping with his pretended means. Following the honeymoon she bought the automobile, a new automobile, she paid for much of the household expenses and I'm satisfied that in this approximately 10 weeks following the honeymoon he lived primarily on her money and that immediately following the honeymoon his attitude towards her and her friends and her money became intolerable and amounted to gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty. Now, the defendant's principal defense in this case, in fact, he didn't take the stand in his own defense, is that she hasn't proved it with some corroborating evidence. Now, not every detail of plaintiff's evidence has to be corroborated in a divorce suit but a sufficient amount of it has to be in order to give credence and substance to her testimony in regard to the grounds of divorce that she claims. I think there was sufficient corroboration now that he lived in her house and also in the exhibits that plaintiff has presented, exhibits 1 through 11, and it's been substantiated to some extent by the testimony of other witnesses. * * *'

On appeal defendant contends that plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to support the judgment and even if sufficient it is not corroborated, as required by K.S.A. 60-1609(d).

Plaintiff's evidence consisted of her testimony, that of three other witnesses, and a number of exhibits offered for purposes of corroboration.

In his brief defendant concedes that this court will sustain a trial court's findings in a divorce case where there is any competent evidence to support it.

Plaintiff testified that the parties met between Christmas and New Years of 1965 and were married on April 2, 1966, that prior to the marriage the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement which was admitted in evidence. Plaintiff described her financial assets as a home and other real estate, a bank account, a savings and loan account, farm acreage, rental houses and buildings, and money in her attorney's hands. She further testified that during the period of their courtship defendant lived in Kansas City and she lived in Topeka. Defendant told her that he was by profession 'a highly trained engineer' and the senior member of Haynes and Associates, Engineers; that he had been a general contractor and constructed many buildings in Kansas City; that he was a partner in the T. & H. Construction Company, Inc.; and that he hoped to be active until he recovered a $50,000 or $60,000 investment he had in his 'unique swimming pool casting and design.'

Plaintiff further testified, that relying on statements of defendant, she understood that after their marriage they were going to live in Kansas City in a home provided by him. She prepared an announcement of their marriage for publication in the Topeka Daily Capital, a copy thereof was admitted in evidence and included the following:

'After a wedding trip to Miami, Nassau, and Washington, D. C., the couple will be at home in Kansas City where Mr. Haynes is senior member of Haynes and Associates, Engineers.'

Plaintiff testified that she submitted the announcement, before it was published, to the defendant who looked it over and expressed no disapproval.

After the marriage the parties took a trip lasting approximately three weeks and terminating in Washington, D. C. Plaintiff testified that defendant indicated the purpose of the trip to Washington was to visit with a congressman relative to loans for small communities for recreational purposes pertaining to the swimming pool construction business. When the parties arrived in Washington defendant did not have the business records necessary to confer with the congressman and he was running out of money. He requested his son in Kansas City to forward the records and to advance money. Defendant was advised by his son that there was no money to send and that there were insufficient funds to meet the current payroll. Plaintiff advanced some money to defendant, which was repaid, and the parties returned to Kansas City.

The trial court's findings that defendant failed to provide a home and that they lived primarily on her money are supported by the testimony of plaintiff and corroborated by exhibits in the form of receipts for utility bills and cancelled checks written by both plaintiff and defendant. The checks were written on a bank account of plaintiff to which defendant's name was added after the marriage. Defendant made one deposit in the amount of $600, more than half of which was used for the purchase of a new rug for plaintiff's home. Plaintiff testified there was money going out but only rent collections on her properties coming in.

Plaintiff also testified that she was 'humiliated to death' because they did not move to Kansas City, as stated in the announcement of their marriage, but that she could not bring herself to press defendant for an explanation when there was not enough money to meet the payroll of defendant's business.

A witness described plaintiff's embarrassment when the subject of the failure to move to Kansas City was brought up during a visit in plaintiff's home.

Plaintiff further testified that she was unable to communicate with defendant about their affairs; she knew defendant did not love her-that all he cared about was her money; that he complained about the irregular appearances of her tenants when they came to pay the rent, and that he was annoyed when tenants called to request repair work on the rental properties. She stated that defendant usually did the necessary repair work but complained about it and also complained when she paid anyone else to do the work. Plaintiff testified defendant made it plain that her friends were strangers to him. Plaintiff further testified that when she confronted defendant concerning his change in attitude toward her he refused to discuss the matter.

A witness called by plaintiff testified that defendant had told her the parties were going to live in Kansas City after the marriage; that on another occasion defendant criticized plaintiff for making snap decisions; and that the parties had lived in plaintiff's home since the marriage.

One of plaintiff's tenants testified that on one occasion when he asked plaintiff to have an incinerator fixed he was asked by defendant 'why I didn't fix it or couldn't I fix it.'

Another witness called by plaintiff testified that he and his family were close friends of plaintiff and visited the parties after the marriage. He stated that he explained to plaintiff why he and his family had not called sooner because he thought the parties were living in Kansas City. He also stated he immediately changed the subject because the plaintiff's face...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Cool v. Cool
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1969
    ...conflicting evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the experienced trial judge before whom the case was tried. (Haynes v. Haynes, 202 Kan. 83, 446 P.2d 749; Saint v. Saint, 196 Kan. 330, 411 P.2d 683; Zeller v. Zeller, 195 Kan. 452, 407 P.2d 478; Preston v. Preston, 193 Kan. 379, 3......
  • Baumgardner v. Baumgardner
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1971
    ...Moreover, we believe the corrboration here to be ample as required by the provisions of K.S.A.1970 Supp. 60-1609(d). In Haynes v. Haynes, 202 Kan. 83, 446 P.2d 749, it was said that corroboration need not support each and every detail of the injured party's testimony, nor is it essential th......
  • Sinclair v. Sinclair
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1969
    ...by substantial, competent evidence. If so, the findings will not be disturbed. (Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749, 457 P.2d 60; Haynes v. Haynes, 202 Kan. 83, 446 P.2d 749.) According to Robert, when his wife first started studying to be a Jehovah's Witness he 'figured any religion was a good reli......
  • Talman v. Talman
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1969
    ...and to destroy legitimate matrimonial objectives, has often been characterized as behavior amounting to extreme cruelty. (Haynes v. Haynes, 202 Kan. 83, 446 P.2d 749, and Saint v. Saint, 196 Kan. 330, 411 P.2d 683.) Cruelty as a ground for divorce is generally a course of conduct rather tha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT