McAnerney v. McAnerney
Decision Date | 11 July 1973 |
Citation | 334 A.2d 437,165 Conn. 277 |
Parties | Robert M. McANERNEY v. Mona T. McANERNEY et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Herbert L. Cohen, Bridgeport, with whom was Richard L. Albrecht, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).
Frank S. Meadow, New Haven, with whom was William F. Gallagher, New Haven, for appellee (named defendant).
William L. Hadden, New Haven, for appellee (defendant Walter A. Stoecker).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment seeking to determine whether he continued to be bound by the terms of a separation agreement between him and his former wife, the named defendant, hereinafter called Mrs. McAnerney. Also named as a defendant was Walter A. Stoecker, against whom was made the claim that because of his continued cohabitation with Mrs. McAnerney, the plaintiff was caused embarrassment and financial loss. Both defendants demurred to the amended complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against either of them. The court sustained both demurrers. The plaintiff failed to plead over and judgment was rendered on the demurrers sustained. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.
The amended complaint alleges that the plaintiff and Mrs. McAnerney were married and have one child; 1 that on December 12, 1966, the McAnerneys entered into a property settlement and separation agreement 2 consisting of twenty-nine paragraphs; that the undertakings, pursuant to the agreement, were to continue until the death or remarriage of Mrs. McAnerney; that the provisions of the agreement were incorporated by reference in a decree of divorce obtained by the plaintiff in Mexico, by which decree the marriage was dissolved on January 9, 1967; that to the date of the amended complaint (filed June 28, 1972) 'the plaintiff has been paying alimony to the defendant' and has provided insurance; that for the past several months and as of the date of the amended complaint, Mrs. McAnerney and the defendant Stoecker have cohabited at her home in Darien, where the defendant Stoecker maintains his residence; that these defendants, for the past several months have continued to live in the community and conduct themselves openly, notoriously and conspicuously, to all intents and purposes, as a married couple; that by such behavior 'the defendants have intentionally created a condition which approximates the state of being remarried . . . while circumventing the conditions for termination of alimony, as provided in the agreement and decree of divorce,' and that thereby the defendants are being unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense, are practicing a deception and are causing him embarrassment, financial loss and damage to his reputation.
The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment seeking to determine whether he was still bound by the terms of the separation agreement and the decree of divorce in view of Mrs. McAnerney's cohabitation with the defendant Stoecker, their 'living together as a married couple' and whether, in equity, the plaintiff's obligation is terminated because of this relationship. In addition, he sought money damages and any other relief to which he might be entitled.
The defendant Stoecker demurred on the grounds that the amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to set forth a recognizable cause of action against him; that it was not alleged that he was a party to the agreement referred to in the complaint; that it was not alleged that he owed any legal duty or obligation to the plaintiff and that there was no allegation that he violated any such duty or obligation; that there were no facts alleged which, if true, establish an actual bona fide and substantial question and issue in dispute between the plaintiff and him or establish a substantial uncertainty of legal relations between them which requires settlement; and finally, that no facts were alleged which if proven could legally justify an award of money damages against him.
The defendant Mrs. McAnerney demurred to the amended complaint 'in that it fails to state a cause of action recognizable either under law or equity as it is based on the plaintiff's claim of the defendant's, Mona T. McAnerney, misconduct and illicit cohabitation with defendant Walter B. Stoecker, which are neither grounds nor basis for the relief requested.'
The trial court, in its memorandum of decision, sustained both demurrers 'on all the grounds stated therein.' After a discussion of the facts and the law the court held that As to the defendant Stoecker, the court stated that his demurrer
The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading. Mainolfi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 634, 636, 153 A.2d 460; see Practice Book § 106. In testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint on demurrer, the court is limited to and controlled entirely by the information which the complaint itself affords. Ryan v. Knights of Columbus, 82 Conn. 91, 92, 72 A. 574. The burden rests on the plaintiff to allege a recognizable cause of action. Lombardi v. J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc., 153 Conn. 19, 22, 213 A.2d 449; Stavnezer v. Sage-Allen & Co., 146 Conn. 460, 461, 152 A.2d 312. Such a requirement embodies the principle that in any action the complaint is required to set forth facts on the basis of which, if true, the plaintiff may be able to establish in law a right to relief, for unless that is done, the pleading is demurrable. Waterbury v. Connecticut Ry. & Lighting Co., 86 Conn. 180, 188, 84 A. 723. A demurrer admits all facts well pleaded. Cyr v. Brookfield, 153 Conn. 261, 263, 216 A.2d 198; Weaver v. Ives, 152 Conn. 586, 589, 210 A.2d 661. The question, then, is whether the plaintiff has alleged facts by which he may be entitled to the relief sought against the defendants.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant Stoecker is a necessary party by reason of Practice Book § 309 which requires that 'all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint' be parties to an action for a declaratory judgment. An action for a declaratory judgment is a special statutory proceeding implemented by the rules of court. General Statutes § 52-29; Practice Book §§ 307-313. .' Lipson v. Bennett, 148 Conn. 385, 389, 171 A.2d 83, 85.
The plaintiff, in his complaint, failed to assert what right, if any, in his separation agreement with Mrs. McAnerney, was so affected as to create a justiciable issue with the defendant Stoecker. He relies on the cases of Connors v. Connolly, 86 Conn. 641, 647, 86 A. 600, and Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 24 A.D.2d 284, 266 N.Y.S.2d 406, as authority for the doctrine of 'prima facie' tort. These cases have no application to this defendant. The complaint in the case before us alleges no duty owed by the defendant Stoecker to the plaintiff. He was not a party to the separation agreement and was not bound by it. Thus the court was able to determine from the pleadings that a cause of action for a declaratory judgment against the defendant Stoecker did not exist and it correctly sustained his demurrer to the amended complaint.
The plaintiff assigns error in the sustaining by the court of Mrs. McAnerney's demurrer to the amended complaint and in ruling, as a matter of law, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against her. The court's memorandum of decision on the demurrer recites that the separation agreement was entered into prior to January 9, 1967, the date on which the plaintiff obtained a Mexican decree of divorce. The complaint alleges that the defendants have been living and conducting themselves as a married couple and that such conduct has been open, notorious and conspicuous in the neighborhood and in the community. A demurrer admits all facts well pleaded. Cyr v. Brookfield, supra. The plaintiff argues in his brief that such conduct and relationship justifies a termination of his obligation under the separation agreement. He does not claim that the divorce obtained by him is in any way affected by this conduct.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Nardini
......v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 177 Conn. 17, 19, 411 A.2d 1 (1979); (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse; McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277, 283, 334 A.2d 437 (1973); Lipson v. Bennett, 148 Conn. 385, 389, 171 A.2d 83 (1961); (3) that the matter in ......
-
Amodio v. Cunningham
...... DeMello v. Plainville, 170 Conn. 675, 677, 368 A.2d 71; McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277, 282, 334 A.2d 437. See Practice Book, 1978, § 151. The following facts are alleged in the amended complaint: On or ......
-
State Marshal Ass'n of Conn., Inc. v. Johnson
...the question is whether one exists that requires settlement between the parties. Practice Book § 17-55 ; McAnerney v. McAnerney , 165 Conn. 277, 283, 334 A.2d 437 (1973) (to maintain a declaratory judgment action, plaintiff must allege "facts showing [that the substantial question] requires......
-
Loughlin v. Loughlin
...... cohabit and conduct themselves as a married couple, our law neither grants to nor imposes upon them marital status." (Citations omitted.) McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277, 285, 334 A.2d 437 (1973); see also Hames v. Hames, supra, 163 Conn. at 592-93, 597, 316 A.2d 379; State ex rel. ......
-
Marriage & Divorce
...1997); Brissett v. Sykes, 855 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Ark. 1993); People v. Badgett, 895 P.2d 877, 897 (Cal. 1995); McAnerney v. McAnerney, 334 A.2d 437, 441 (Conn. 1973); Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 944 P.2d 1279, 1291 n.2 (Haw. 1997); Cecil v. Farmers Nat’l Bank, Common-Law Marriage , NAT. CON......
-
Marriage and divorce
...1997); Brissett v. Sykes, 855 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Ark. 1993); People v. Badgett, 895 P.2d 877, 897 (Cal. 1995); McAnerney v. McAnerney, 334 A.2d 437, 441 (Conn. 1973); Tabieros v. Clark Common-Law Marriage , NAT’L CONF. OF STATE LEGISLATURES (Apr. 19, 2011), https://perma. cc/4C6U-N673 . State......