State ex rel. Pearcy v. Long

• Decision Date: 26 June 1963
• Citation: 383 P.2d 377,234 Or. 630
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, ex rel. Barbara J. PEARCY, Petitioner, v. Donald E. LONG, as Circuit Judge, Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 377

383 P.2d 377

234 Or. 630

STATE of Oregon, ex rel. Barbara J. PEARCY, Petitioner, v. Donald E. LONG, as Circuit Judge, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

Argued and Submitted June 3, 1963.

Decided June 26, 1963.

Desmond D. Connall, Chief Deputy, Domestic Relations Dept., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., and Chester W. Pecore, Senior Deputy, Civil Dept., Portland.

Paul R. Meyer, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Kobin & Meyer, Portland.

Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and LUSK, JJ.

SLOAN, Justice.

Petitioner seeks a writ of original mandamus to require the respondent circuit judge to decide a divorce case. The distinguished judge declined to act because he believed he had lost jurisdiction. The case is now here upon a demurrer to the alternative writ issued by this court. To explain the reasons for our decision in the case it is necessary to relate the chronological events involved.

Petitioner filed her complaint for divorce on August 22, 1961. She alleged acts of cruelty. She was unable to secure service of summons upon her husband at that time. Although petitioner and her husband resided in Portland, the husband's business and most of the parties' property were in the state of Washington and in British Columbia. In January 1962, upon her husband's promise to stop his alleged misconduct, she resumed cohabitation with him. The cohabitation continued for several months. In August 1962, petitioner again left her husband and thereafter resided separately from him. She claimed the acts of cruelty did not cease and that she could no longer tolerate her husband's conduct. On August 28, 1962, petitioner was able to personally serve her husband, for the first time, with a summons and a copy of the complaint that had been filed a year earlier. On October 1, 1962, an order of default was entered against the husband. On October 31, 1962, the divorce case was brought before respondent for determination as a default proceeding.

When the hearing started counsel advised the court about the cohabitation that had occurred after the filing of the complaint. Counsel properly was attempting to avoid any claim of fraud upon the court. At that juncture the judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction to proceed further until an additional pleading was served upon the defendant-husband to give the husband an opportunity to plead that the charges of cruelty alleged in the complaint had been condoned. At the court's insistence a pleading designated as an 'Amended and Supplemental Complaint' was filed. However, the additional pleading added nothing to the allegations of the complaint. Evidence to support the allegations of the complaint then pending was submitted to the court by an offer of proof. The court declined to either grant or deny a divorce and suggested that the matter might be brought to this court. This original mandamus proceeding was then filed to require the judge to decide the case. The basic question is: Did the judge at that time have the jurisdiction to act--to grant or refuse a divorce?

The brief filed by the District Attorney of Multnomah county in behalf of the respondent submits two propositions of law. The first is that no demand was made upon respondent to act before the petition for the writ was filed. The rule in regard to demand was recently stated:

'It is unquestionably the general rule that before mandamus will lie a relator must have demanded performance of the act or duty which he asserts it is the court's clear duty to perform. State ex rel. v. Beals, 73 Or. 442, 144 P. 678. This, however, is not an inflexible rule. When it appears that the demand would be unavailing, demand is unnecsary.' State ex rel. S. P. Co. v. Duncan, 1962, 230 Or. 179, 181, 368 P.2d 733, 734.

There is evidence in this case that a demand as such would have been unavailing. In fact, the only demand that could, with propriety, have been made was by submitting the case to the judge for decision.

The second proposition is that the writ, and the pleadings in the divorce case attached to the writ, demonstrate that the judge did not 'refuse jurisdiction to decide the case because of a mistake of law.'

The problem presented by this case has been answered in Payne v. Payne, 1937, 157 Or. 428, 430, 431, 72 P.2d 536, 537, 538. The opinion is positive on the issue at hand:

'* * * Nor do we find any merit in the contention that the conditional resumption of the marital relations between the parties, after the commencement of the suit, in itself alone operates to defeat the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the suit when it appears, as here, that the suit was not dismissed and that the conditional promise of the defendant, upon which the marital relations were resumed, was not kept. It is true that, during the period in which the marital relations were resumed, neither party would, when living together as husband and wife, be entitled to maintain the suit but, after these relations had been terminated because of defendant's failure to perform the conditions on which the marital relations had been resumed, the suit not having in the meantime been dismissed, the jurisdiction of the court continued and, upon a showing that the defendant had failed to keep his promise and had been guilty of subsequent cruelty upon his part toward the plaintiff, the court had jurisdiction to render a decree of divorce in the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

'Condonation is the forgiveness, express or implied, by one of the married parties of an offense which he knows the other had committed against the marriage on the condition of being continually afterward treated by the other with conjugal kindness, and, while the condition remains unbroken, there can be no divorce, but a breach of it revives the original remedy. See 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, § 269. See, also, Egidi v. Egidi, 37 R.I. 481, 93 A. 908, Ann.Cas.1918A, 648, and note.'

It must be recognized that the opinion in the Payne case recites that the plaintiff in that case had filed a supplemental complaint following the attempted...