Wilson v. Wilson

• Citation: 77 Idaho 325,291 P.2d 1113
• Decision Date: 28 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 8247,8247
• Parties: Mescal WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney WILSON, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 1113

291 P.2d 1113

77 Idaho 325

Mescal WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney WILSON, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 8247.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 28, 1955.

Rayborn, Rayborn & Kramer, Twin Falls, for appellant.

J. W. Taylor, Buhl, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

The parties were married September 24, 1948. At the time plaintiff (appellant) was sixteen years of age and defendant (respondent) was seventeen years of age. Two children were born to the parties; a girl, Rhonda K., and a boy, Dennis. At the time of the trial they were five and nearly two years old, respectively. Plaintiff filed action for divorce, alleging cruelty. In addition to his answer the defendant filed a cross-complaint seeking a divorce, also on the ground of cruelty. Both parties sought custody of the children.

After hearing the evidence the trial court found plaintiff had not established cruelty and granted a divorce on the cross-complaint of the defendant. The court found that both parties were fit for custody of the children and awarded the custody of the daughter, Rhonda, to the defendant, and the custody of the boy, Dennis, to the plaintiff and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff $25 per month for his support.

Appellant assigns as error the findings of the court to the effect that her charge of cruelty is not sustained by the evidence. In support of this assignment, appellant points to testimony given by her father to the effect that the parties lived at the home of appellant's parents at various times during their marital relationship; that her parents helped the parties financially and in other ways; loaned them two cows in the spring of 1953, which the defendant did not return, but sold instead. The witness, Snowre Eriksen, a neighbor, testified she attended a birthday party which appellant gave for the older child, and that defendant was not present and did not come home up to the time she left the party at eleven o'clock. Appellant also points to the testimony of her mother, Vivian Cantrell, to the effect that during the past year appellant had been nervous and mentally upset, under a mental strain; that she had been in bed and that she, the grandmother, took care of the children during the time of the mother's illness. Plaintiff also directs attention to 'Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.' We find no plaintiff's exhibits so marked, but assume plaintiff's Exhibits A, B and C are referred to. A and B are bank checks drawn by the defendant, payable to his father, in the sums of $389.15 and $700, respectively, given and cashed in October and November, 1952. Exhibit C is a bill of sale given by defendant to his father January 12, 1953, purporting to transfer a Ford car, various items of farm equipment, and household goods consisting of a washer, electric stove, and an oil stove.

Lastly appellant points to the testimony of respondent to the effect that after the parties had separated and divorce was pending, he had been told by two male acquaintances that they had dated or been out with his wife.

Explanatory of these matters, the record shows that the parties, immature when married, had been in tight financial circumstances during the period of their marriage. The parents of each have helped them and, although defendant has been industrious and willing to work, he has not always been able to support his family, and has been in debt to his father in an amount above two thousand dollars most of that time. In the light of these facts, the evidence relied on by appellant would not support a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty.

Appellant does not assign as error the findings of the trial court sustaining the conclusion that respondent was entitled to a divorce from plaintiff on the ground of her cruelty.

Bearing upon the issue of the custody of the older child awarded to respondent, the trial court found:

'3. That the defendant was immature at the time of the marriage, but at that time and ever since has been and now is a good conscientious worker, industrious, and has kept himself employed at all times and has supported and maintained his wife and children to the best of his ability during the marraige. That since the birth of the two minor children, Rhonda K. Wilson, and Dennis Wilson, the defendant has assisted the plaintiff in taking care of said minor children, has been kind to them and has taken care of them himself at times when the plaintiff was away or left the children, and that he loves both of the children and the children return his care and affection; that defendant is not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquor, and that he is a fit and proper person to have the custody of the minor children.

* * *

* * *

'5. That plaintiff has a quick ungovernable temper which at times makes her unreasonable to all persons surrounding her, including the defendant, and at such times she refuses to speak to the defendant for a considerable period of time; that she has been dissatisfied a great deal of her married life with the work and employment of the defendant and the amount of income that he has earned and has caused him to quit his employment and hunt other employment at times, and by such action has materially reduced the earning capacity of the defendant to make a living for his children and the plaintiff. That the defendant has not...