Heine v. Heine
| Decision Date | 06 July 1962 |
| Parties | Mary A. HEINE v. Egbert L. HEINE and Delora Heine. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Sullivan & Ullmann, Northport, for plaintiff.
Morris A. Feuerstein, Bay Shore, for defendants.
The plaintiff served and filed a complaint containing five causes of action as follows: (1) an action for judgment declaring that the plaintiff is still the wife of the defendant, Egbert L. Heine, on the ground that the divorce she had obtained from this defendant in Mexico was invalid because the court did not have jurisdiction over the parties; (2) an action for the same relief on the ground that the plaintiff was under such mental and emotional derangement as to be imcompetent at the time she obtained the divorce; (3) an action for the same relief on the ground that in obtaining the divorce the plaintiff acted under duress applied by her husband; (4) an action to set aside the separation agreement entered into with her husband prior to her obtaining the divorce on the ground that she was at the time incompetent to manage her affairs; and (5) an action for absolute divorce on the ground that her alleged husband has been living in adultery with the woman he now calls his wife.
Having abandoned the second and third causes of action, the plaintiff elected to proceed to trial on the first cause of action only, and it is that alone with which we are now concerned.
The plaintiff and the defendant, Egbert L. Heine, were married on September 2, 1933 in the State of New York where they resided continuously as man and wife until March of 1958. Two children were born of the marriage, both of whom are now emancipated. On March 11, 1958, the plaintiff, according to prearrangement with her husband, flew to El Paso, Texas for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. The following morning she was met in the lobby of her hotel and driven across the Mexican border to Juarez where she was taken to a lawyer's office to subscribe to the pleadings and petition in the divorce action. These documents were read to her before she signed them. She then proceeded to the City Hall where she signed the Municipal Register of Residents. She then appeared in person before the Judge of the First Civil Court where she was granted a decree of divorce on the ground of incompatibility of temperaments. The husband had previously executed a special power of attorney authorizing a lawyer with offices in Juarez to appear for him in the action and was represented accordingly. Thereupon the plaintiff returned the same day to El Paso from whence she flew back to New York. These facts are not denied.
Assuming on authority of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel
... ... 1 Kantrowitz v. Kantrowitz, 21 A.D.2d 654, 249 N.Y.S.2d 723; Matter of Klemas v. Klemas, 20 A.D.2d 530, 245 N.Y.S.2d 952; Heine v. Heine, 19 A.D.2d 695, 242 N.Y.S.2d 705, affg. Sup., 231 N.Y.S.2d 239; Busk v. Busk, 18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 336, affg. as mod. Sup., 229 ... ...
-
Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel
...670, 4 N.Y.S.2d 992; Laff v. Laff, 5 Misc.2d 554, 160 N.Y.S.2d 933, Scileppi, J., affd. 4 A.D.2d 874, 166 N.Y.S.2d 678; Heine v. Heine, Sup., 231 N.Y.S.2d 239, affd. 19 A.D.2d 695, 242 N.Y.S.2d 705; Busk v. Busk, Sup., 229 N.Y.S.2d 904, mod. 18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 336; Matter of Fleisc......
- Heine v. Heine