Willoughby v. Willoughby, 191
Decision Date | 04 February 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 191,191 |
Citation | 261 A.2d 452,256 Md. 590 |
Parties | Robert Lee WILLOUGHBY v. Nan T. WILLOUGHBY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Stanley R. Jacobs, Silver Spring, for appellant.
J. Ambrose Kiley, Silver Spring, for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, FINAN, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
An increase of alimony to a wife by $2.00 a week appears to have generated this appeal by the husband. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted the appellee wife, Nan T. Willoughby, a divorce on the ground of adultery. By its decree the wife was awarded custody of a minor child and the husband was ordered to pay alimony of $52.00 a week. The husband, Robert Lee Willoughby, does not contest those portions of the decree granting a divorce and awarding custody, but appeals solely on the ground that the alimony award was excessive. The parties were married in 1928 and have children, two of whom are now emancipated and a third who will be very shortly. The relationship between the parties was apparenty stormy for many years. The wife left their jointly owned marital abode in September of 1966, and has never returned. Alleging constructive desertion, she filed her initial bill of complaint seeking a divorce a mensa et thoro in October of 1966. After the complaint was filed the husband moved from the marital home into the apartment of a female friend. After discovery of this occurrence the wife filed a supplemental bill by which she sought an absolute divorce on the ground of adultery. At the hearing the husband testified he lived in the friend's apartment from January 1968 until the time of the trial. Even though the husband and his roommate denied any wrongdoing the chancellor found adultery as a fact, relying on the decisions of this Court in Breault v. Breault, 250 Md. 173, 242 A.2d 116 (1968) and Blankenship v. Blankenship, 239 Md. 498, 212 A.2d 294 (1965). Appellant concedes that under these decisions the chancellor's determination that the husband was guilty of adultery can not successfully be challenged on appeal and he does not desire to question the award of custody of the minor child.
The authority for allowing alimony is statutory, Maryland Code Art. 16, §§ 2-5 , but the standard whereby it is awarded is judicial. As we heretofore stated in Lopez v. Lopez, 206 Md. 509, 520, 112 A.2d 466, 471 (1955):
Mays v. Mays, 232 Md. 122, 192 A.2d 80 (1963); Gosnell v. Gosnell, 208 Md. 179, 117 A.2d 861 (1955). Of
course the discretion vested in trial judges in this regard is not unlimited and we have not hesitated to modify an award where we felt it was 'clearly wrong.' Donigan v. Donigan, 208 Md. 511, 119 A.2d 430 (1956).
This Court in many decisions has indicated factors the trial court should consider in arriving at an alimony award. Our statement enumerating some of these factors in Timanus v. Timanus, 178 Md. 640, 642, 16 A.2d 918, 920 (1940) has been frequently repeated in subsequent cases.
We have also said that alimony is based upon need and is never a punitive measure. Danziger v. Danziger, 208 Md. 469, 118 A.2d 653 (1955). It is obvious that the reason the trial judge is entrusted with wide discretion in awarding alimony is that each factual situation before him is unique, and accordingly a mechanical or rigid formula is inappropriate.
The husband recognizes this discretion in the trial court but contends that Judge Shure erroneously considered the adultery on the part of the husband as 'the fault which destroyed the home' when, as a fact the home had been destroyed with the separation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blaine v. Blaine
...spouse to provide support. See 1980 Report at 5; Flanagan v. Flanagan, 270 Md. 335, 339, 311 A.2d 407 (1973); Willoughby v. Willoughby, 256 Md. 590, 593, 261 A.2d 452 (1970); Brown v. Brown, 204 Md. 197, 206, 103 A.2d 856 (1954). But, as we observed in Tracey, supra, a number of the enumera......
-
Jensen v. Jensen
...Md. at 519-20, 112 A.2d 466 (emphasis added; citations omitted). See also Brodak, 294 Md. at 28, 447 A.2d 847; Willoughby v. Willoughby, 256 Md. 590, 592, 261 A.2d 452 (1970) (both citing Lopez ). The decision of whether to award alimony depended on the circumstances of the parties at the t......
-
Colburn v. Colburn, 173
...disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the chancellor, or his judgment is clearly wrong. Willoughby v. Willoughby, 256 Md. 590, 261 A.2d 452; Crandall v. Crandall, 14 Md.App. 476, 287 A.2d 326. See Waters v. Waters, 191 Md. 436, 62 A.2d 250; Quinn v. Quinn, 11 M......
-
Wallace v. Wallace
...on this record we are quite comfortable. It would appear that Mrs. Wallace's post-separation adultery, see Willoughby v. Willoughby, 256 Md. 590, 593-94, 261 A.2d 452, 453-54 (1970) (conduct subsequent to actual physical separation may be taken into account in awarding alimony), borrowing t......