Wilde v. Wilde

Decision Date04 March 1966
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesJohn R. WILDE v. Laura M. WILDE (and companion cases 1 ).

John F. Lombard, Boston, for John R. Wilde.

Richard D. Leggat, Boston, for Laura M. Wilde.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.

KIRK, Justice.

A libel for divorce and three petitions were filed in the Probate Court involving the marital relation, and incidents thereto, of John and Laura Wilde, husband and wife. Decrees were entered on the libel and on the petitions. John has appealed three of the four decrees all of which were entered on July 6, 1964. There is no appeal by Laura from any of these decrees. On November 22, 1963, John filed a libel for divorce against Laura for cruel and abusive treatment. On December 13, 1963, Laura sought an order to restrain John from dealing with bank accounts and securities held in their names jointly and to have him account for and deliver to her fifty per cent of all such holdings. On January 16, 1964, John brought a petition in equity to determine title to personal property, including household furnishings and the jointly held securities and bank accounts. Finally, on April 16, 1964, Laura petitioned for separate support, alleging that she was living apart from John for justifiable cause.

The judge dismissed John's libel for divorce. John appealed. The evidence is reported. It was oral and conflicting. The judge made a report of material facts. He apparently believed one spouse rather than the other. We cannot say that he was plainly wrong. Hiller v. Hiller, 305 Mass. 163, 165, 25 N.E.2d 163; Hamilton v. Himilton, 325 Mass. 278, 279, 90 N.E.2d 322, and cases cited.

On Laura's petition for separate support, the evidence is reported. The judge made findings of fact. He allowed Laura $100 a week for herself and her minor daughter, along with all medical, dental, hospital, fuel, Mortgage and real property tax expenses. This determination rests in the judge's discretion as exercised in light of all the circumstances attending the husband's worth and the wife's legitimate needs. Wilson v. Wilson, 329 Mass. 208, 211, 107 N.E.2d 195. We cannot say that he was plainly wrong in the exercise of his discretion. Klar v. Klar, 322 Mass. 59, 60, 76 N.E.2d 5. Compare Hillery v. Hillery, 342 Mass. 371, 173 N.E.2d 269.

John has appealed from the decree dismissing his petition for a determination of his ownership of bank accounts, securities and household furnishings. This decree, on its face, is inconsistent with the unappealed dismissal of Laura's equity petition against John in so far as both petitions affected jointly held bank accounts and securities. Our examination of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Zildjian v. Zildjian
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 29 Junio 1979
    ...supported by the plaintiff's testimony, which the judge could choose to believe rather than that of the defendant. Wilde v. Wilde, 350 Mass. 333, 334, 214 N.E.2d 874 (1966). Mancuso v. Mancuso, 1 Mass.App. 867, 868, 305 N.E.2d 868 (1974). It would serve no useful purpose to describe these i......
  • Ricciardelli v. Ricciardelli
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 5 Marzo 1976
    ...the other, we cannot say that he was plainly wrong. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 325 Mass. 278, 279, 90 N.E.2d 322 (1950); Wilde v. Wilde, 350 Mass. 333, 334, 214 N.E.2d 874 (1966). 7. The orders directing the payment of counsel fees are neither constitutionally infirm, HOUSE V. HOUSE, --- MASS. -......
  • Comins v. Comins
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 23 Julio 1992
    ...ultimate demise of the marriage. 8 The determination of a witness's credibility is a task for the trial judge. See Wilde v. Wilde, 350 Mass. 333, 334, 214 N.E.2d 874 (1966). A related issue is the allocation of the marital home to the husband, despite the wife's testimony that she left in o......
  • Klass v. Wirtz
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1968
    ...attempted by the July 26 decree is a nullity. It should be expunged and the plaintiffs' appeal along with it. Wilde v. Wilde, 350 Mass. 333, 335, 214 N.E.2d 874. In reaching our conclusion we make no intimation as to the correctness, instead of denying the motion for leave to dismiss withou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT