McChesney v. McChesney, s. M--6824
| Decision Date | 15 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | Nos. M--6824,M--5148,s. M--6824 |
| Citation | 91 N.J.Super. 523,221 A.2d 557 |
| Parties | Anne Therese McCHESNEY, Plaintiff, v. Paul Allison McCHESNEY, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Harry Kay, Newark, for plaintiff.
Leslie H Cohen, Newark, for defendant.
CONSODINE, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
This is a consolidation of a separate maintenance action supplemented by specific acts of extreme cruelty apparently seeking divorce from bed and board, and a later action for divorce by the same plaintiff on the ground of extreme cruelty.
The answer to the earlier action is denial. The defense of provocation is given to the supplemental complaint. The answer to the divorce action is denial with defenses of provocation, admissions of adultery by plaintiff without further specification, and adultery by plaintiff with a named individual. Since there was no counterclaim, this individual was not noticed pursuant to R.R. 4:97. An affidavit of plaintiff denies adultery with anyone.
Defendant noticed depositions of plaintiff and the named individual. He now seeks contempt against plaintiff for refusal to depose concerning the alleged adultery with the named individual. That individual on the deposition availed himself of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The question involved is the right, if any, of either party to a proceeding for a divorce from bed and board to take depositions without order of the Court.
R.R. 4:98--5 provides that in an action for divorce, depositions, interrogatories and admissions are not allowed except by order of the court.
Separate maintenance actions pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:34--24, N.J.S.A. are clearly excluded from the ban of the rule. Discovery in such a proceeding is limited to matters of assets, income, etc. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 48 N.J.Super. 184, 196, 137 A.2d 84 (App.Div.1957). However, the exclusion is not an open door to unlimited discovery pertaining to other currently filed counts or those hopefully contemplated from the discovery proceeding.
The divorce actions as to which discovery is forbidden without court order are described in our statutes N.J.S. 2A:34--2 and 2A:34--3, N.J.S.A. Presumably, the Legislature therein used the word 'divorce' with intent when designating causes for divorce from the bond of matrimony and causes for divorce from bed and board. See Koch v. Koch, 79 N.J.Eq. 24, 80 A. 113 (Ch. 1911). The causes for divorce from bed and board are often described in the statutory words, in the Ecclesiastical Court phrase, divorce A mensa et thoro, as limited divorce, and incorrectly as a separate maintenance action.
Our jurisdiction in divorce matters is purely statutory. Schluter v. Schluter, 23 N.J.Super. 409 (App.Div.1952).
Our rules do not invade the legislative field and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...or deny the power of the Supreme Court to make rules setting the practice and procedure of the courts." McChesney v. McChesney, 91 N.J.Super. 523, 525-526, 221 A.2d 557 (Ch.Div.1966). For a summary judgment procedure to be utilized it is necessary that a defendant be permitted to produce ev......
-
Ariail v. Ariail
...An action for a legal separation, or limited divorce, and an action for separate maintenance are not the same. McChesney v. McChesney, 91 N.J.Super. 523, 221 A.2d 557 (1966); see Nocher v. Nocher, 268 S.C. 503, 234 S.E.2d 884 (1977); 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 4 at 194 (1983). Un......
-
Ritt v. Ritt
...if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Though McChesney v. McChesney, 91 N.J.Super. 523, 221 A.2d 557 (Ch.Div.1966), holds that there is no open door to unlimited discovery in a separate maintenance action, it is apparent the t......
-
Durham v. Durham
... ... Div ... 2013). Jurisdiction in family matters is purely statutory ... McChesney v. McChesney, 91 N.J.Super. 523 (Ch. Div ... 1966) ... To ... ...