Roden v. Roden
Decision Date | 07 January 1926 |
Docket Number | Civil 2429 |
Citation | 242 P. 337,29 Ariz. 398 |
Parties | GARNET RODEN, Appellant, v. W. D. RODEN, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Dudley W. Windes, Judge. Affirmed.
Messrs Struckmeyer, Jennings & Strouse and Messrs. Knapp, Boyle & Pickett, for Appellant.
Mr. F M. Gold, Mr. Joseph E. Morrison and Mr. Thomas A. Flynn, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the superior court of Maricopa county dismissing a complaint asking for a divorce, and declaring as valid and subsisting a separation agreement entered into by the parties.
The facts of the case are as follows: W. D. Roden, hereinafter called defendant, was on the third day of October, 1922, a widower with property worth upwards of two hundred thousand dollars. On that date he married Garnet Roden, hereinafter called plaintiff. The latter had no property of her own, and was the mother of two sons by a previous marriage; defendant being childless. From that time until the twelfth day of October, 1923, they cohabited as man and wife. On the latter date, and while they were residing at their home in Flagstaff, Arizona, plaintiff notified defendant that his treatment of her had been such that it was ruinous to her health and that she would stand it no longer, but that she was going to leave him and go to the city of Phoenix. Thereafter they entered into an agreement which reads as follows:
Thereafter plaintiff removed to Phoenix, Arizona, and in April, 1924, brought suit for divorce against defendant on the ground of excesses, cruel treatment and outrage; set up the separation agreement above referred to and alleged it was obtained by threats, fraud and undue influence; asked that the agreement be declared void, that she be granted a divorce, temporary suit money and alimony, and that on the final decree she be given the lump sum of seventy-five thousand dollars. Defendant answered, denying the cruel treatment alleged in the complaint, setting up that the separation was caused solely by her fault, and was against his will and consent, and because of her infatuation for another man; alleged that the agreement referred to was entered into without any pressure being brought to bear on plaintiff, and with her full knowledge of its effect and in accordance with her wishes; that he had paid her the amount due thereunder up to the date of suit, and was willing to continue in accordance therewith. He further alleged that there was no community property.
The matter was tried before a jury, which answered some twenty-three interrogatories, some unanimously and some not. Part of the answers favored plaintiff's theory of the case, part defendant's. The court thereafter rendered judgment as follows:
"Wherefore it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree of divorce sought by plaintiff be, and the same is, hereby denied; and it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff take nothing by her complaint herein, and that the same be, and it is hereby dismissed with prejudice; and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodieck v. Rodieck
...Tyson v. Tyson, 61 Ariz. 329, 149 P.2d 674 (1944); Lightning Delivery Co. v. Matteson, 45 Ariz. 92, 39 P.2d 938 (1935); Roden v. Roden, 29 Ariz. 398, 242 P. 337 (1926); Pendleton v. Brown, 25 Ariz. 604, 221 P. 213 (1923).10 'Locus poenitentiae' means 'right to withdraw from an incompleted t......
-
Beard v. Beard
... ... contemplated separation. (Lamb v. Brammer, 29 Idaho ... 770, 162 P. 246; Johnson v. Richards, 50 Idaho 150, ... 294 P. 507; Roden v. Roden, 29 Ariz. 398, 242 P ... 337; Daniels v. Benedict, 97 F. 367.) ... WERNETTE, ... J. Budge, C. J., Givens and Holden, JJ., and ... ...
-
Henry's Estate, In re, 2
...settlement is fair and equitable, free from fraud and undue influence, the court normally will approve the agreement. Roden v. Roden, 29 Ariz. 398, 242 P. 337 (1926). We know of no law suggesting that because a husband is not represented by counsel, a property settlement signed by him is vo......
-
Harber's Estate, In re, 8572
...equitable. This Court has declared to be valid postnuptial agreements which are incident to separation or divorce. See Roden v. Roden, 29 Ariz. 398, 242 P. 337 (1926). The validity of postnuptial agreements not related to separation or divorce and which attempt to prevent, prospectively, th......