Ribergaard v. Ribergaard

• Decision Date: 30 December 1952
• Docket Number: No. 10625,10625
• Parties: RIBERGAARD v. RIBERGAARD.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 89

110 N.E.2d 89

349 Ill.App. 99

RIBERGAARD v. RIBERGAARD.

No. 10625.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Dec. 30, 1952.

Lloyd E. Beach, St. Charles, George D. Carbary, Elgin, for appellant.

Puklin Puklin, Nelson & Page, Aurora, for appellee.

WOLFE, Justice.

Ruby Ribergaard filed her complaint in the Circuit Court of Kane County against Peter Thorwald Ribergaard asking for separate maintenance. The complaint alleged that both the parties were actual residents of the City of St. Charles in Kane County, Illinois; that they were married on September 21, 1935, and have no children; that during said marriage the plaintiff demeaned and conducted herself as a faithful, chaste and affectionate wife, and faithfully discharged her duties as his wife.

The complaint then alleges that on April 13, 1951, without any provocation on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant wilfully and wantonly abandoned and deserted the plaintiff and has ever since continued to live separate and apart from her, and has refused to resume the marital relations and that she is now living separate and apart from the defendant without any fault on her part; that at the time plaintiff was abandoned by her husband she was without food or means of support and medical care, and as a result her life was thereby rendered miserable and she became very nervous and broken in health and body; that the defendant is a strong, able-bodied man well able to provide plaintiff with a proper and suitable home; that he has been for many years employed as a carpenter in which occupation he earns at least $500 per month; that the defendant has refused and neglected to provide for the support of the plaintiff and since the separation he has paid nothing for her support and she is now without means of support.

The complaint then alleges that the parties are owners as joint tenants of certain real estate in St. Charles; that the plaintiff claims an interest therein; that all the furniture and furnishings in their home were purchased by the plaintiff with her own funds; that she claims the same as her separate property; that the parties own a 1948 Chrysler automobile, in which the plaintiff claims an interest.

The prayer for relief is that the defendant make full and complete answer; that he be required to make proper and suitable provision for her support; that he be required to pay her suit money and attorney's fees, and for support during the pendency of this suit; that the rights and claims of the parties to the property aforesaid be adjudicated by the Court, and all necessary orders to be entered by the Court in the determination thereof, and for general relief.

The defendant filed his answer, admitted that the parties were married and were actual residents of St. Charles in Kane County, Illinois. He denied all other allegations of the complaint.

Paragraph 8 of the answer admits that the parties hereto appear as joint tenants of record of the real estate described, yet in equity said property is the individual property of Defendant; that none of the funds of the Plaintiff went into the purchase, upkeep or improvement thereof; that same was purchased by Defendant with his own funds prior to the marriage; that the 1948 Chrysler sedan is the sole property of Defendant; that Plaintiff contributed nothing in the purchase or maintenance of same, but it was purchased from Defendant's own personal funds; denies that Plaintiff has any interest in said real and personal property; denies that the furniture and furnishings were purchased by Plaintiff and are her separate property, or were purchased from her separate funds; alleges that said furniture and furnishings were purchased from the funds of the Defendant, but in the possession and control of Plaintiff; calls for full and complete accounting of all moneys received by the Plaintiff from the U. S. Government allotment checks and U. S. Bonds forwarded to the Plaintiff by the Defendant while in the Armed Services in World War II; and calls for full and complete accounting of all rentals received by Plaintiff while Defendant was in the Armed Service, and of all funds and securities of Defendant as his own personal property, but in the custody and control of Plaintiff.

The case was submitted to the Court without a jury that found the issues in favor of the plaintiff and adjusted the rights of the parties to some extent, and ordered the defendant to pay fifty dollars a month for the support and maintenance of the plaintiff and made other orders in regard to the disposition of the automobile, insurance and taxes on the residence and gave the plaintiff the right to use the residence. It is from this decree that the appeal has been perfected.

From a reading of the evidence as abstracted, there is no doubt that there were arguments back and forth between the parties and especially in regard to a lady named Anderson. At the time the defendant left the home he left a note which is as follows: 'Sorry it had to be thise-way Ruby but i can't take it any longer, good by Ruby.' There is no question but that the defendant voluntarily left the home in which they were residing. He claims that his wife was jealous of Miss Anderson and that was usually what the arguments were about. The evidence does not disclose that there were any improper relations between the parties, but it is not denied that Miss Anderson would drive by the house frequently and blow the horn of her auto and wave towards the house and this was irritating to Mrs. Ribergaard.

It is insisted by the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to separate maintenance, because she did not take Mr. Ribergaard back and try to live with him. The evidence of appellant as abstracted shows the following: 'I went looking for her in Elgin. She came to me in Aurora and St. Charles. She knew where to find me in St. Charles. In Aurora it was more of a chance. I don't think she looked for me in Aurora. She saw me and went up and talked to me. I didn't go chasing her to talk to her. She asked me why I left and asked me to come back. In Aurora and St. Charles, on condition. She said: 'You come back or I will take everything that is there.' Those were the words she used. She wanted to know why I left. Wanted me to...