Veach v. Veach

• Decision Date: 20 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 9348,9348
• Citation: 87 Idaho 237,392 P.2d 425
• Parties: Ruth O. VEACH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Norman J. VEACH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 425

392 P.2d 425

87 Idaho 237

Ruth O. VEACH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Norman J. VEACH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9348.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

May 20, 1964.

L. Charles Johnson, of Johnson & Olson, Pocatello, for appellant.

William W. Black, Idaho Falls, for respondent.

KNUDSON, Chief Justice.

Appellant and respondent were married at Fairbanks, Alaska, January 1, 1949. Three children were born as the issue of said marriage, and at the time of the trial of this action were approximately 12, 11 and 8 years of age.

This action was commenced by respondent on April 25, 1962, seeking divorce upon the ground of extreme cruelty, custody of the children, child support and division of the community property. No affirmative defenses were raised by appellant.

Following the trial the court entered an amended judgment granting respondent the divorce, and other relief prayed for. From a judgment entered March 1, 1963, this appeal is taken.

The essential issues raised under the assignments of error are, did respondent's complaint herein state a claim for relief; and, if so, did the evidence and proof summitted at the trial show grounds for a divorce based on cruel treatment?

Appellant does not present any appreciable argument challenging the sufficiency of the complaint, however we shall first consider the questioned portion thereof. Under paragraph V of the complaint it is alleged:

'That the defendant has been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward the plaintiff in the following particulars:

'1. That the defendant has been extremely dictatorial toward the plaintiff and the children ever since the time of the marriage.

'2. That on more than one occasion the defendant has been unduly abusive to the children.

'3. That the defendant belittles the plaintiff by remarks made to the plaintiff and by his actions toward the plaintiff.

'4. That the defendant is inclined to frequently change jobs and causes the family to move from place to place.

'5. That the defendant is not inclined to pay his lawful debts and this fact does not worry him.

'6. That the defendant is very willing to let someone else than himself support his family.

'7. That on numerous occasions it has been necessary for the parents of both the plaintiff and the defendant to feed and clothe the children.

'8. That during the past year the parties hereto have quarrelled many times over all types of family matters.

'As a result of defendant's actions and conduct, plaintiff has and does suffer from extreme nervousness and mental anguish so that a continuance of the marriage state has become no longer endurable. That all the acts and things done by the defendant and suffered by the plaintiff are done without any cause or provocation on the part of the plaintiff.'

Although appellant denied those allegations, proof conceivably could be adduced under such allegations as to constitute adequate grounds for divorce based on extreme cruelty. The complaint sets forth a claim for relief.

Appellant strenuously contends that the evidence produced is not sufficient to sustain the trial court's findings and conclusions that respondent is entitled to a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. After a careful review of the record, we are unable to agree with such contention.

The three findings concerning which appellant contends are not supported by competent evidence are, amended findings Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which provide:

'5. That there has been unusual domination of the family affairs by the defendant. That in most cases the domination was exceeding paternalistic influence, but in the matter of finances this domination went beyond the normal limits. The defendant did not deny that plaintiff's suggestions were met with constant rebuff, but did deny that said suggestions were met with silence.

'6. That the family income was divided between the plaintiff and the defendant for 'budgetary purposes' but that the control over the budget was completely at the hands of the defendant.

'7. That both parties to this action are well educated persons and it is apparent that the domination by the defendant of the plaintiff would and did have a deleterious effect upon the physical and mental health of the plaintiff. The defendant did at no time deny the fact that the plaintiff suffered either mentally or physically from his conduct. That the domination of the plaintiff by the defendant in both financial and household matters did constitute a most unusual situation.'

Respondent's testimony in support of her case in chief, both direct and cross-examination, consists of over 60 pages of the transcript, and it would unduly extend this opinion to identify or set out all of respondent's testimony which may be considered as supporting the above quoted findings. However, we deem it proper to quote some excerpts from respondent's testimony which tend to support the challenged findings and conclusions of the trial court.

As concerns the unusual domination of the family affairs by appellant, respondent testified:

'Q Well, there was considerable trouble between the two of you because you thought that he was dictatorial and you were stubborn and resisted what you thought was dictatorial, is that it?

'A I finally got to the point, yes, frankly, where it didn't much matter what he offered, I intended to bristle at it. When I realized that last winter it came to me that this was not helping the situation, that I must try to be considerably more loving and kind and I really did try to overcome that. But I had taken it so long that honestly I had to consciously work to try to receive his suggestions as nicely as they should be received. I did try to do that. It did not do any good. It didn't make for better relationships at all. That's the way I felt.

'Q He continuously made suggestions to you for the improvement of your relations?

'A The type of suggestions I have had have all been the type where I must change my character. Yes, I have constantly been worked on and trained and molded since the day we were married.'

* * *

* * *

'A * * * Also, I felt that I was completely disregarded in front of the children. He by-passed me constantly in matters of authority or in anything that had to do with the children or the home. I was nothing but the one who was getting the meals and acting the part of the wife, and a slave.'

In explaining the extent to which she had been consulted relative to the family affairs, respondent testified:

'A * * * But I didn't feel that I was consulted. He went through the token--part of the time--token business of consulting me a little bit, but underneath it I just felt it didn't matter much what I said anyway; he did what he wanted. And that's just the way the whole family life was run.

'Q Your real complaint is that he wouldn't consult you about things?

'A Basically, Mr. Denman, my complaint is simply the dictatorship, yes sir, that's it.'

In response to an interrogation as to how the home was handled and whether her ideas and suggestions as to how to run the home were given consideration, respondent stated:

'A Yes, I always felt, for instance, that I had no freedom in arranging our homes. When we would move into any place, Norman set the furniture and dictated as to what part of the house should be storage space and what part would be his shop and I could have what was left. * * *'

* * *

* * *

'A Well, as far as rearranging the house, there was nothing to do about that; it was just to stay the way that Norman wanted it. And I became quite discouraged over trying to keep house in such circumstances. So it was very hard to be interested in keeping the house. I had the feeling that either I did what was requested and required or else I...