Ritz v. Ritz

• Decision Date: 18 April 1947
• Docket Number: 111.
• Citation: 52 A.2d 729,188 Md. 336
• Parties: RITZ v. RITZ.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

52 A.2d 729

188 Md. 336

RITZ v. RITZ.

No. 111.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 18, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Emory H. Niles, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Celeste W. Ritz against E. Russell Ritz, who filed a cross-bill for divorce.From a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro and directing the defendant to pay plaintiff $150 monthly as well as reasonable medical expenses and $150 as counsel fees, the defendant appeals.

Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded for passage of a decree in conformity with opinion.

D Franklin McGinnis, of Baltimore, for appellant.

George M. Brady, of Baltimore (John Marshall Jones, Jr., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

COLLINS Judge.

This is an appeal by E. Russell Ritz, appellant, from a decree of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City by which his wife, Celeste W Ritz, appellee here, was awarded a divorce a mensa et thoro from the appellant.The decree further ordered appellant to pay $150 monthly to the appellee, payments to be made through the Probation Department of Baltimore City; to pay reasonable medical expenses for the appellee; to pay the wife's solicitor the sum of $150 as counsel fee; and the costs of those proceedings.

The parties to this cause, both college graduates, were married in Washington, D. C., on the 12th of June, 1936, and have no children.The appellee formerly worked but has been unemployed for the past two years.The appellant is an engineer employed by a chemical company in Baltimore, where both parties have lived for more than one year prior to the filing of the bill of complaint in this case.The appellant receives a gross salary of $431.25 per month, from which are deducted Social Security tax, withholding tax, a contribution to a pension fund, and hospitalization charges, leaving him a net amount each month of approximately $347.26.The parties to this suit own, in their joint names, a home in Baltimore, worth between $9,500 and $11,000, subject to a ground rent of $90.00 and a mortgage of $1,700.They apparently had no trouble during the first six years of their married life.

The appellant charges the appellee with five physical assaults upon him, and that the appellee makes so much noise and quarrels with him so much he can hardly sleep at night.Since January 1, 1946, he says he has not been getting more than about three hours sleep a night.He also charges that the appellee calls him at his office on the telephone so often while he is at work that he is unable to properly perform his duties.He testified that his wife accused him of being out with women of ill repute.He admits that he left the home where he and his wife lived in the early part of June, 1946.A bill for support and maintenance was filed July 16, 1946, by the appellee to which the appellant answered and filed a cross-bill for a divorce a mensa et thoro.An answer was filed to the husband's cross-bill by the wife.After the hearing in the case, the Chancellor suggested that the wife amend her bill and ask for a divorce a mensa et thoro.This amendment was made, whereupon the Chancellor signed the decree hereinbefore set forth.

The appellee is highly nervous and the husband is of a nervous temperament.He charges, and she admits, that on an evening in July, 1944, they attended a very depressing motion picture show and while driving home she hit him on the head with a hammer and stabbed him several times in the arm with a screwdriver.Scars from these wounds are still visible.All of the other assaults she denies except that, in response to an accusation that she scratched him in the face with her fingernails, she said she did not think she did that.She also admits that she struck the kitchen door of the house eight or nine times with an axe one evening while her husband was upstairs.She said that she did this to show the poor construction of the house.She says that the reason she accused him of going out with women of ill repute, was because she found contraceptives in a magazine in his car and she and her husband had not used them for eight years.The appellee was taken to Sheppard Pratt in the fall of 1945 for treatment and apparently stayed there about one month.There is some question whether her husband caused her to be taken there, or whether this was done through the efforts of her minister and her mother.During her stay at that institution her husband wrote her a number of letters, which she offered in evidence, in which he expressed regret that it was necessary for her to be confined there.These letters all show that the husband had sincere affection for his wife.

A neighbor testified that she lived next door to the parties to this suit in a group house and that she had heard commotion in the Ritz house between January and June, 1946.She could hear Mrs Ritz quarreling but could never hear Mr. Ritz.Sometimes she would hear the appellee in the middle of the night, and sometimes about two or three o'clock in the morning, screaming and 'hollering.'She said this interrupted her sleep and it was necessary for her to call the police twice.

A fellow employee of the appellant testified that very often Mr. Ritz would come to work in the mornings very tired and would go to sleep at his desk.

One day early in June, 1946, the appellant stayed away from work telling his wife he was ill.They had breakfast together.Later in the morning two doctors came to the front door.They were sent by appellant's solicitor.The appellee became frightened, thinking she was to be taken again to Sheppard-Pratt and told the doctors that they could not come in.She then told her husband that she was going to her sister's home in Ellicott City.The husband and wife then drove in the car to the sister's house.After they arrived, the parties to this suit and the sister had a conversation in which the appellee stated that she would like to go away for a rest for awhile.The appellant was unwilling for her to do this.The wife testifies that the husband said he did not want her.She said she then brought up the subject of support and the husband agreed to give her $150 a month for three years and allow her to live in the house for that period.After this discussion, the appellant took the appellee to see an attorney and he waited outside the attorney's office for her.They then went to a restaurant for dinner.The appellant then took his wife to her mother's home and left her there.Later that evening the wife returned to the home where she and her husband lived.The appellant packed up and left the next morning.The appellant admits that he left the home but claims that it was necessary for him to do so on account of the cruelty of his wife.

The wife admits that the appellant has always treated her well but highly resents the fact that he had her committed to Sheppart-Pratt in 1945 and the attempted commitment in 1946.The appellant has contributed to the appellee's support since he left her.

As stated by Chief Judge Bond in the case of Kruse v. Kruse, 179 Md. 657, 663, 22 A.2d 475, conduct of one spouse which compels the other to leave may justify a divorce to that other on the ground of desertion, even though the conduct may not justify a divorce on the ground of cruelty.Robertson v. Robertson, Md.51 A.2d 73.If the wife's actions, which cause the husband to leave, were beyond her own control because of mental derangement, her forcing him to leave does not afford grounds for a divorce to him, because a competent will on the part of the wife is necessary to render her capable of desertion.As was said in the Krusecase, supra, at page 663 of 179 Md., at page 478 of 22 A.2d: 'Mere high strung nerves, and unrestrained impulsiveness of a sane woman would not, on the other hand, save the actions of the wife from legal desertion.'Lynch v. Lynch,33 Md. 328.In the instant case the wife has not been adjudged insane although, as hereinbefore stated, in November, 1945, approximately eighteen months before this suit was filed, she received treatment at Sheppard-Pratt under advice of doctors.Her actions immediately prior to the time her husband left her indicates her highly nervous condition.The question before us is whether the conduct of the wife was such as to endanger the life, person, or health of the husband, and such as to render impossible the proper discharge of the duties of married life.Bounds v. Bounds,135 Md. 220, 108 A. 870;Hastings v. Hastings,147 Md. 177, 181, 127 A. 743.

As was said in the case of Stevens v. Stevens,183 Md. 599 at page 602, 39 A.2d 690, 691: "Nagging, abuse, cursing and swearing do not amount to ...