Melinn v. Melinn, 86
| Decision Date | 05 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 86,O,86 |
| Citation | 44 N.W.2d 886,329 Mich. 96 |
| Parties | MELINN v. MELINN. ctober Term. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Haskins & Roach, Grand Rapids, for Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellee.
Haskins & Roach, Grand Rapids, for defendant and appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is a divorce suit. The parties were married January 10, 1948, in Grand Rapids. One child, Edward Joseph Melinn, was born March 4, 1949. The record does not contain a copy of the bill of complaint or a copy of the answer filed in this case, but by a careful search of the record we conclude that plaintiff wants a divorce, custody of the child, an allowance for his maintenance, and a division of the property. While defendant filed an answer in which he asks that plaintiff's bill of complaint be dismissed, he does not ask for affirmative relief.
The record shows defendant to be guilty of numerous acts of cruelty, sufficient to justify a decree for divorce, except that plaintiff has also been guilty of carrying on illicit love affairs of sufficient depravity to deny her a divorce. The principal issue in this case is whether there has been a condonation of plaintiff's misconduct by defendant. Plaintiff admits that upon more than one occasion she had illicit relations with one Heidema; that both plaintiff and defendant went to confession and agreed that they would start a new wife and would not repeat the wrongful acts that each had committed. As a result of this agreement the parties continued living together as husband and wife until a short time before the divorce was started. It also appears that defendant not only knew, but encouraged his wife in her misconduct with Heidema. There is evidence that plaintiff had sexual relations with two other men without the knowledge of defendant; and that plaintiff was seen and admits that she was in a parked car in the night time with a strange man. The record shows that the reconciliation between the parties was not of lasting benefit as each of the principals soon violated its terms.
The rule relating to condonation is well stated in Farley v. Farley, 278 Mich. 361, 270 N.W. 711, 713, 109 A.L.R. 678, where we quoted with approval from 9 RCL p. 382 as follows:
In Creech v. Creech, 126 Mich. 267, 85 N.W. 726, we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rykhus v. Rykhus, 13409
...there must be forgiveness, reconciliation, reunion and the restoration of all marital rights. See also SDCL 25-4-22; Melinn v. Melinn, 329 Mich. 96, 44 N.W.2d 886 (1950). In this instance, the cause of divorce consists of a course of offensive conduct which aggregately constitutes the claim......
-
Doe v. Doe
...the presumption that there has been forgiveness, reconciliation, reunion and restoration of all marital rights. Melinn v. Melinn, 329 Mich. 96, 44 N.W.2d 886; Martin v. Martin, 166 Va. 109, 184 S.E. 220; 27A C.J.S. Divorce § 59, pp. 193, In this case it is obvious cross defendant was not se......
-
Gassman v. Gassman, s. 12714
...of this case, where we have at best an offer to reconcile, we adopt the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in Melinn v. Melinn, 329 Mich. 96, 99, 44 N.W.2d 886, 888 (1950), wherein it held that to constitute condonation there must be "forgiveness, reconciliation, and reunion, and restor......