Sanford v. Sanford

• Decision Date: 25 May 1962
• Docket Number: No. 35189,35189
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: Gertrude SANFORD, Appellee, v. Carl Clifford SANFORD, Appellant.

Page 451

115 N.W.2d 451

173 Neb. 835

Gertrude SANFORD, Appellee, v. Carl Clifford SANFORD, Appellant.

No. 35189.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 25, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. While the court has the power to adjust all the respective property interests of the parties to a divorce from bed and board, it will not be done to a greater extent than necessary to effect a proper separation under the facts of the particular case.

2. A divorce from bed and board leaves the legal status unchanged in many respects while relieving the parties of the right of cohabitation. The primary purpose is to assure support to the wife during the continuance of the marital relation.

3. It is not intended that the parties in a suit for a divorce from bed and board have all the benefits of an absolute divorce except the legal dissolution of the marriage contract.

Harry Grimminger, Grand Island, for appellant.

Wellensiek & DeBacker, Grand Island, for appellee.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., CARTER, MESSMORE, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH and BROWER, JJ., and CHADDERDON, District Judge.

CARTER, Justice.

This is a suit commenced by Gertrude Sanford to obtain a divorce from bed and board from her husband Carl Clifford Sanford. The defendant cross-petitioned for an absolute divorce. The trial court dismissed defendant's cross-petition and granted plaintiff a divorce from bed and board. A division of property and an allowance of support money to the wife was decreed. The defendant has appealed. The defendant assigns as error the alleged excessiveness of the allowances made to the plaintiff.

The parties were married on October 18, 1931. They have no children other than an adopted son now 25 years of age. The parties separated on October 17, 1959, because of defendant's relationship with another woman. The details need not be recited here. The evidence sustains the granting of a divorce from bed and board to the plaintiff and the dismissal of defendant's cross-petition for an absolute divorce. No complaint is made of these findings by the trial court.

The parties owned a home valued at $14,000, of which approximately $860 remains unpaid. They have a savings account of $5,900. Defendant owns life insurance policies having a cash surrender value of $3,091. Plaintiff owns life insurance policies having a cash surrender value of $872. The furniture contained in the home was not valued. The total value of the property owned by the parties, exclusive of an automobile and household furniture, amounts to approximately $23,003.

The trial court awarded the automobile to defendant and the household furniture to the plaintiff. Other property of the value of $17,712 was awarded to plaintiff. Property of the value of $5,291, in addition to the automobile, was awarded to defendant. Plaintiff was awarded support money in the amount of $130 per month for 16 months and $80 per month until the defendant attains the age of 65 years.

Plaintiff was 49 years of age at the time of trial. She was employed in the millinery department of a retail store at a gross salary of $50 per week and take-home pay of $39.40. She estimated her living expenses at $181 per month in addition to the payments of $75 per month on the home property. She has sustained two surgical operations for cancer of the breast and suffers from an asthmatic condition.

Defendant is employed by the Sperry-Hutchinson Green Stamp Company at a gross salary of $325 per month plus a commission, which returned a gross income of $7,400 in 1960.

It is upon the foregoing state of facts that defendant contends that the division of property and allowance of support money is inequitable.

The present case is one to obtain a divorce from bed and board, the effect of which is to obtain separate maintenance for the wife. While the courts have the power, when justice and equity require, to make a division of property and grant...