Nahm v. Nahm, 34170

• Decision Date: 23 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 34170,34170
• Citation: 477 S.W.2d 713
• Parties: Lee J. NAHM, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcella M. NAHM, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 713

477 S.W.2d 713

Lee J. NAHM, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcella M. NAHM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 34170.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District.

Feb. 23, 1972.

James A. Pudlowski, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Fordyce, Mayne, Hartman, Renard & Stribling, Edgar G. Boedeker, Martin Schiff, Jr., Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.

DOWD, Judge.

The plaintiff filed suit against his wife for divorce, and she countered with a cross-bill for divorce, custody of the minor children, alimony and child support, and suit money and attorney fees. The court below awarded plaintiff the divorce, and awarded defendant custody of the children. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay $250 per month per child for child support and the attorney's fee of $1500.

Defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in awarding plaintiff a divorce, in not granting a divorce to defendant, and in failing to specifically rule on defendant's cross-bill for divorce.

Since this is a divorce action, we must review all the evidence and reach our own conclusion as to the proper judgment to be entered. However, the judgment of the court below will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Civil Rule 70.01(d), V.A.M.R.

Plaintiff's testimony was as follows. Plaintiff and defendant were married in St. Louis, Missouri in September of 1942, and subsequently had six children before separating in April of 1969. Plaintiff was an assistant vice-president of a local bank, and on his own time also operated a bookkeeping and tax service. Because of the two jobs, and also because plaintiff was expected to solicit and entertain potential customers of the bank, he was absent from home a great deal of time.

He stated that his wife repeatedly, and without cause, accused him of gambling, drunkenness and infidelity, both in private and in public. She used to call his friends and business associates to check up on his whereabouts. On two occasions she had thrown objects at him once a souvenir rock and once a couple of whiskey bottles. On another occasion, she physically attacked him and scratched his face and then ordered him out of the house. He testified that he had given her no provocation for these acts. Since 1968, she had refused to go out with him socially, though previously she had done so. She also stopped fixing his evening meal and mending his clothes. Finally, just prior to the separation, she refused to cohabit with him and she insisted on his moving out of the home.

Plaintiff handled all the family finances, customarily leaving about $50 or $100 in cash in the house for the defendant to use for groceries and other needs. However, he emphasized that he and his wife had a joint checking account which was available to her. His gross earnings were around $21,000 per year, all of which went for the household expenses and the needs of his family, including the children's tuition at various schools amounting to several thousand dollars per year.

He admitted in his testimony that he had a key to the Playboy Club which he concealed from his wife, who considered the place immoral. He went to the Playboy Club about six times a year to entertain customers. As for his relationship with his children, he admitted having neglected usual parental duties because of his work load, but claimed the defendant had made matters much worse by her false accusations in the children's presence and her constant interference with his attempts at discipline. He denied all charges of infidelity, withholding of money from his family, and excessive drinking. Two character witnesses, one a male business associate, the other the wife of a business associate, and a social acquaintance of both parties testified to his gentlemanly conduct and so-briety.

Defendant, for her part, testified that she had kept house for the plaintiff for 28 years, and always had his meals ready whenever he came home at night. However, he very seldom was at home and he never kept her informed of his whereabouts. She claimed total ignorance of their finances because of her husband's refusal to discuss money matters with her. He reprimanded her several times in public, and embarrassed her by his obvious attentions to other women.

She testified to an incident involving plaintiff's female witness, when plaintiff had attempted to look under the woman's dress. While admitting that everyone else considered it a joke, she did not regard it as such.

She admitted to having made calls to various places and people for the purpose of checking on defendant's whereabouts. She only did this when he was out late and she didn't know where he was. During the last three years of their marriage, she stated that they quarreled almost constantly, creating an air of tension which upset the children. The rock-throwing incident was a result of plaintiff's having compared her sexually to other women. The bottle-throwing was occasioned by plaintiff calling her a 'parasite.' On the other hand, she testified that plaintiff would never argue, but called her names, such as 'bitch' or 'parasite.' She denied that she had ever scratched him...