Sinclair v. Sinclair, No. 45461
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | O'CONNOR |
| Citation | 204 Kan. 240,461 P.2d 750 |
| Docket Number | No. 45461 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1969 |
| Parties | Hazel Marie SINCLAIR, Appellant, .v Robert Eugene SINCLAIR, Appellee. |
Page 750
.v
Robert Eugene SINCLAIR, Appellee.
Page 751
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where there is substantial, competent evidence to support a judgment of the trial court granting a party a divorce, the judgment will not be disturbed on appellate review.
2. The religious zeal of a spouse may be carried to such lengths that domestic harmony is completely disrupted and the legitimate ends of matrimony destroyed, with the result that the life of the complaining spouse is rendered intolerable. Such conduct characterizes behavior amounting to extreme cruelty and also may constitute gross neglect of duty within the purview of our divorce statute (K.S.A. 60-1601, as amended).
3. In a divorce action the division of property and allowance of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial court whose judgment will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.
4. The paramount consideration of the court in custody cases between parents is the welfare and best interests of the children. In the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion the trial court's determination of custody will be upheld on appeal.
5. The record is examined in a divorce action where the wife became so obsessed with her religious beliefs and activities as a Jehovah's Witness that her conduct competely disrupted family life and she neglected her duties as a wife and mother, and it is held, the trial court did not err in (1) granting the husband a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty; (2) the division of property and alimony award; and (3) awarding custody of the minor children to the husband.
Murvyl M. Sullinger, Pittsburg, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
C. R. Stauffacher, Columbus, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
[204 Kan. 241] O'CONNOR, Justice.
After a marriage spanning slightly over twenty years, Robert Eugene Sinclair was granted a divorce from his wife Hazel on February 21, 1968. Custody of their two children-Gary and David, ages eighteen and thirteen-was granted to the father. Certain property was set over to each of the parties, and Robert was ordered to pay Hazel the sum of $3,000.
Hazel has appealed and contends the district court erred in: (1) granting a divorce to Robert on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty, (2) the division of property and alimony award, and (3) awarding custody of the boys to their father.
The marriage was reasonably tranquil until 1966 when Hazel became interested in the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and began studying the Bible. As a result her interest in her husband and children gradually waned to the point where she told Robert and the boys her religion meant more to her than her family or anything else. Finally, after Robert told her he
Page 752
would not 'live with the religion' any longer, Hazel departed the home in February 1967. Following a short sojourn to Montana, she returned to Kansas and lived apart from her family. Hazel maintained little or no contact with them and did not so much as attend Gary's graduation exercises in June 1967.On August 31, 1967, Hazel instituted an action for separate maintenance in which Robert filed a cross-petition for divorce. When the case came on for trial Hazel withdrew her petition and the case was heard on the cross-petition. Robert was granted a divorce on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty about which Hazel now complains on the apparent basis there was no evidence of marital delinquency against her. She contends the evidence all related to acts of indignity and abuse on the part of her husband. The essence of her argument, as we view it, is that we should reweigh the evidence and arrive at a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court. This we decline to do. The trial judge had the duty of determining the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of the witnesses. Our task on appellate review is to examine the record and ascertain whether his findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence. If so, the findings will not be disturbed. (Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749, 457 P.2d 60; Haynes v. Haynes, 202 Kan. 83, 446 P.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Tauheed, No. 102,214.
...whose custody is in question. Prior cases from this court, Beebe v. Chavez, 226 Kan. 591, 602 P.2d 1279 (1979), Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969), Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705 (1957), and have provided some guidance to the lower courts on this subject, ......
-
Muhammad v. Muhammad, No. 92-CA-470
...polestar consideration continues to be the intolerableness of the plight created for the nonoffending spouse. See Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969); Golden v. Arons, 36 N.J.Super. 371, 115 A.2d 639 (1955); Mertens v. Mertens, 38 Wash.2d 55, 227 P.2d 724 (1951); Smith v......
-
Morris v. Morris
...denied 390 U.S. 988, 88 S.Ct. 1184, 19 L.Ed.2d 1292 (1968); Frank v. Frank, 26 Ill.App.2d 16, 167 N.E.2d 577 (1960); Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969); Quinn v. Franzman, 451 S.W.2d 665 (Ky.App.1970); Dean v. Dean, 32 N.C.App. 482, 232 S.E.2d 470 (1977); Commonwealth e......
-
Morris v. Morris
...denied 390 U.S. 988, 88 S.Ct. 1184, 19 L.Ed.2d 1292 (1968); Frank v. Frank, 26 Ill.App.2d 16, 167 N.E.2d 577 (1960); Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969); Quinn v. Franzman, 451 S.W.2d 665 (Ky.App.1970); Dean v. Dean, 32 N.C.App. 482, 232 S.E.2d 470 (1977); Commonwealth e......
-
Harrison v. Tauheed, No. 102,214.
...whose custody is in question. Prior cases from this court, Beebe v. Chavez, 226 Kan. 591, 602 P.2d 1279 (1979), Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969), Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705 (1957), and have provided some guidance to the lower courts on this subject, ......
-
Muhammad v. Muhammad, No. 92-CA-470
...polestar consideration continues to be the intolerableness of the plight created for the nonoffending spouse. See Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969); Golden v. Arons, 36 N.J.Super. 371, 115 A.2d 639 (1955); Mertens v. Mertens, 38 Wash.2d 55, 227 P.2d 724 (1951); Smith v......
-
Morris v. Morris
...denied 390 U.S. 988, 88 S.Ct. 1184, 19 L.Ed.2d 1292 (1968); Frank v. Frank, 26 Ill.App.2d 16, 167 N.E.2d 577 (1960); Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969); Quinn v. Franzman, 451 S.W.2d 665 (Ky.App.1970); Dean v. Dean, 32 N.C.App. 482, 232 S.E.2d 470 (1977); Commonwealth e......
-
Morris v. Morris
...denied 390 U.S. 988, 88 S.Ct. 1184, 19 L.Ed.2d 1292 (1968); Frank v. Frank, 26 Ill.App.2d 16, 167 N.E.2d 577 (1960); Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969); Quinn v. Franzman, 451 S.W.2d 665 (Ky.App.1970); Dean v. Dean, 32 N.C.App. 482, 232 S.E.2d 470 (1977); Commonwealth e......