Luvall v. Luvall

• Decision Date: 19 March 1929
• Citation: 228 Ky. 577
• Parties: Luvall v. Luvall.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

228 Ky. 577

Luvall v. Luvall.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided March 19, 1929.

1. Divorce. — Evidence held not to prove that either plaintiff or defendant resided in county in which divorce suit was brought, as required by Ky. Stats., sec. 2120.

2. Divorce. — County in which parties to divorce suit have their "residence," within Ky. Stats., sec. 2120, requiring action to be brought in county in which plaintiff or defendant resides, is county in which they live.

Appeal from Warren Circuit Court.

W.O. RODES for appellant.

W.R. GARDNER for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY COMMISSIONER STANLEY.

Affirming.

The appellant, Mattie Luvall, filed this suit for divorce against the appellee, Kiah Luvall, alleging that "she is now an actual resident of Warren county, Kentucky"; that on April 12, 1925, the defendant abandoned her in this state; that before their separation he had struck her, and inflicted injuries which caused her to suffer a great deal, and "on account of his cruel and inhuman conduct they could not live together, and as a result they are now separated." She prayed for a divorce for the custody of their three children, and for maintenance and alimony in the sum of $30 a month.

The answer denied the plaintiff had resided in Kentucky for twelve months before the institution of the suit, and denied that she had resided in Warren county during the previous two years or more. The allegation of his abandonment was denied by the defendant, and he charged that the plaintiff had abandoned him while living in Louisville in April, 1925, since which time the plaintiff has been a nonresident of Kentucky. He denied cruel treatment on his part, and stated that he had treated the plaintiff kindly during their married life. As a counterclaim, he prayed for a divorce on the ground of abandonment.

The chancellor was of the opinion that the Warren circuit court did not have jurisdiction of the case, and dismissed the petition and counterclaim. The judgment was rendered on June 4, 1927, and the appeal has been granted by this court. Although duly summoned on the appeal, no defense is here offered by the appellee.

The parties are colored people. They were married at Bowling Green in 1914, and appear to have had no domestic difficulties until after their removal to Louisville in 1924. Out of appellee's earnings they had paid for a home in Bowling Green, which was sold upon their going away, and since that time neither party owned any property in Warren county. Immediately after the separation in Louisville, the appellee went to Owensboro, where he was residing at the time this suit was filed, and the appellant went directly to Detroit, Mich. After the separation, their oldest child, about 12 years old, went to live with the defendant's brother-in-law in Bowling Green, and has been well cared for, and both parties are content for him to stay there. The two younger children were left with the defendant's mother in Morgantown, up to a few days before this...