Wilson v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 10 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 7990,7990 |
| Citation | 354 S.W.2d 532 |
| Parties | Annie Chloe WILSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Warren W. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lincoln, Haseltine, Keet, Forehand & Springer, Springfield, for appellant.
Tucker & Gleason, Willard S. Tucker, E. Andrew Carr, Springfield, for respondent.
Plaintiff instituted this action for divorce alleging indignities on the part of defendant which rendered her condition intolerable. Defendant filed answer and cross-bill. At the conclusion of the trial the court found plaintiff was the innocent and injured party and entered a decree granting her a divorce, care and custody of the minor child, Jennifer, and dismissed defendant's cross-bill; that plaintiff have and recover from defendant the sum of $100 per month child support, $10,000 alimony in gross and attorneys' fee of $750. From this judgment defendant appealed.
Plaintiff's amended petition alleged the following indignities as grounds for divorce, to-wit:
That defendant became cold, distant and aloof in his attitude toward and treatment of plaintiff.
That defendant continually nagged and berated plaintiff, belittled and ridiculed her, and continually belittled and spoke profanely of plaintiff's sons by a previous marriage.
That defendant, throughout the marriage, has attempted by various and devious manner and means to alienate plaintiff from her children, and that defendant's actions in this respect have been particularly marked and vicious since the birth of their daughter.
That defendant throughout his marriage to plaintiff has subjected plaintiff and her sons, by a previous marriage, to sadistic, harsh, cruel, inhuman, irrational and unreasonable treatment and discipline.
That defendant accused one of plaintiff's sons of an improper act toward their daughter, refused plaintiff the right to question the child about it, wrote a long rambling, incoherent and fictitious account of the alleged offense, forced plaintiff to sign the same with defendant, mailed it to the boy's commanding officer in the Navy in an attempt to have the boy punished by naval authorities; that defendant circulated copies of the account to the boy's aunts, uncles, grandparents and other relatives in an attempt to alienate the child's relatives.
That defendant insisted upon plaintiff accepting a teaching position in the school system of Sparta, and at the same time insisted she sign a written agreement, prepared by him, agreeing to turn over her entire salary to him and that he in turn was to pay her $50 per month; that during the past four years defendant has retained plaintiff's earnings except $50 per month and has forced her to spend that amount for family groceries.
That defendant during his last three years of marriage to plaintiff has refused to provide plaintiff with help in caring for their fourteen room home, although insisting that she teach.
That defendant has improperly associated with another woman.
That defendant has a violent and ungovernable temper, has interfered with her teaching and caused so much trouble in the school that she was unable to renew her contract.
It alleged that one child was born of the marriage, Jennifer Chloe, age 9, September 29, 1950; that she is now in the custody of defendant; that plaintiff is a proper person to have the care and custody of said child.
That defendant is a practicing physician at Sparta, has substantial real estate holdings and yearly income; that he is able to provide for the support of plaintiff and said minor child and for plaintiff's support pending the termination of this action.
The prayer for relief is that the court grant plaintiff a divorce, custody of minor child, alimony in gross, temporary alimony during the pendency of the suit and attorney fees.
Defendant's answer to plaintiff's first amended petition admits the marriage, as alleged, and the date of separation, but denies all other allegations. It affirmatively pleads a marriage contract entered into between the parties as a defense to plaintiff's right to recover alimony in gross.
Defendant's cross-bill alleged indignities on the part of plaintiff as follows: That she has continually nagged at defendant on account of money matters, falsely accused him of being stingy; stated she did not wish to live with defendant longer, became cold, distant and aloof in her treatment of defendant, failed and refused to cooperate with him in the building of an estate for their later years and insisted upon spending money because the estate would not go to her sons by a previous marriage; that plaintiff insisted on teaching, over defendant's protest, saying she would leave him rather than stop teaching; that plaintiff, over protest of the defendant, incurred bills at various stores which the family could not afford and demonstrated her extravagance and disregard of defendant's efforts to run the home and financial affairs on a sound and economic basis; that plaintiff belittled and ridiculed defendant's attitude toward actions of her son, Bill, with relation to their daughter when such actions were deserving of blame and censure; that plaintiff has interfered with defendant's proper disciplining of their said daughter; that plaintiff without cause left the family home, refused to return upon defendant's request; that plaintiff falsely accused defendant of associating with other women, including patients of the defendant; that she falsely and without reason accused defendant of telling falsehoods with respect to plaintiff's older son; that she nagged and fussed at defendant without just cause, accusing him of not giving her older son more money; that she falsely accused defendant of being sadistic in disciplining plaintiff's two boys and became violently angry when defendant attempted to correct bad habits of the boys; that she falsely accused defendant and their daughter, Jannifer, with falsehoods with respect to immoral conduct of plaintiff's elder son with said daughter; that she falsely accused defendant of being an atheist; that she, on numerous occasions, called defendant profane and degrading names.
The prayer is for decree of divorce, care and custody of Jennifer, their minor child, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.
Plaintiff's reply to the cross-bill amounts to a general denial of the alleged indignities and an affirmative plea that defendant procured her signature to the alleged marriage contract after the vows between plaintiff and defendant had been solemnized; that her signature was procured by duress, fraud, deceit, imposition and overreaching on the part of defendant; that the conditions and terms of said contract are unconscionable upon their face, unfair, unjust, unreasonable and inequitable; that defendant did not act in good faith or fairness and did not present the document when plaintiff had reasonable time or opportunity to study the terms and conditions and reach an intelligent conclusion as to whether or not signing it would be to her best interest; that the document was not supported by consideration, which is inadequate on its face. It pleads that by reason of the above facts the alleged marriage contract is void ab initio and asks that the court declare the same void and of no effect; that since the marriage defendant has stated many times he did not regard the contract binding; that by subsequent acts and conduct in dealing with the separate property of plaintiff, defendant has rescinded and abandoned the same; that he has accepted some $12,000 money earned by plaintiff teaching.
The record in this case consists of some 400 pages of testimony. We will make a summation of facts therein stated necessary for a determination of the issues involved.
The parties were married August 7, 1949, and separated August 13, 1960. It was plaintiff's second marriage and defendant's seventh. Plaintiff had two sons by her former marriage, Jerry, age 5 1/2 years and Bill, just short of 9. Defendant had two children by a former marriage, John Pitman, age 4, and Deborah, age 12, who were, at that time, in the custody of their mother.
Prior to the marriage both plaintiff and defendant were residents of Sparta. He was an osteopathic physician and surgeon with offices in Sparta, where he had been practicing since 1939. Plaintiff had no property except some household goods and an automobile and she testified defendant told her that he had property of the value of $50,000, and was indebted in the sum of $20,000. She stated this was the only discussion about property matters prior to the marriage; that nothing was ever said about a marriage contract.
Plaintiff's testimony was that she had known defendant for ten years; that he had been their family doctor but their actual courtship was only two or three weeks. At the time of marriage she was 39 and defendant 49. A daughter, Jennifer, was born to the marriage September 29, 1950.
She stated that she and the defendant discussed the matter of her children making their home with them prior to the marriage and that he stated he would not permit anyone to live in his home unless he had charge of their discipline, to which arrangement she agreed. She testified that soon after the marriage defendant took complete control of her children, said she was too lax in their discipline and called her a 'doting mother'. She stated: 'He immediately set about, just,--well, reorganizing our lives, completely.'
Plaintiff testified she had no voice in the disciplining of her children; that if she protested it only made him more bitter toward them; that if she tried to correct them he would say she was either too lax or too harsh, she was never right.
Defendant stated the home was his and he would run it as he saw fit; he had been in the military service and she testified that the operation of the home was sort of a military regime, run on military lines; that the boys would have to stand inspection of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. Reeves
...641, 646(3); Watson v. Watson, Mo.App., 291 S.W.2d 198, 200(1).3 O'Leary v. O'Leary, Mo.App., 385 S.W.2d 346, 351(3); Wilson v. Wilson, Mo.App., 354 S.W.2d 532, 542(3); Campbell v. Campbell, Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 314, 319(6); Haushalter v. Haushalter, Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 703, 705(1).4 Simon v......
-
Frederick v. Frederick
...cited in instant appellant's brief. McGehee v. McGehee, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 300; Reeves v. Reeves, Mo.App., 399 S.W.2d 641; Wilson v. Wilson, Mo.App., 354 S.W.2d 532; Thomas v. Thomas, Mo.App., 288 S.W.2d 689, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 873, 77 S.Ct. 98, 1 L.Ed.2d 77; Dunlap v. Dunlap, Mo.A......
-
P-------- D-------- v. C-------- S--------
... ... Rutstein v. Rutstein, Mo.App., 324 S.W.2d 760, 763(4); Wilson v. Wilson, Mo.App., 260 S.W.2d 770, 780(11); Green v. Perr, supra, 238 S.W.2d at 927(2); Olson v. Olson, Mo.App., 184 S.W.2d 768, 773(13). See ... ...
-
Ferry v. Ferry
...not be enforced unless entered into freely, fairly, knowingly, understandingly and in good faith with full disclosure. Wilson v. Wilson, 354 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App.1962). These principles have certainly survived and are implicit in the statutory directives which now govern the trial courts in p......