Smith v. Smith

BROWN (Gerald), J. The parties to this suit were married shortly over a year when plaintiff husband sued his wife for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The defendant, through her guardian ad litem, answered with a denial, and alleged insanity and waiver as affirmative defenses. Defendant did not file a cross-complaint. The parties had no children as a result of their marriage.

Evidence supporting plaintiff’s cause of action established that defendant was extremely careless in personal and household cleanliness. She often left food in the refrigerator for weeks; it spoiled and she failed to clean it up. Clothes, both clean and dirty, were frequently scattered on the closet and bedroom floors of their new house trailer. Plaintiff often found dirty breakfast and lunch dishes on his return in the evening. He complained of a “coldness” between them and that her personal uncleanliness made sleeping with her difficult, but he had no choice since there was only one bed. An independent corroborating witness testified that plaintiff was calm and good humored before marriage, but became quiet, nervous and depressed afterward.

Before the marriage defendant had been hospitalized for nervous breakdowns and was released cured. She received psychiatric treatment before and after marriage. She lost no time from her work. Plaintiff knew of her mental difficulties before he married her. He knew she was remiss in personal and household cleanliness before marriage, but he warned her he expected this to improve if she was going to quit work and marry him, and she agreed to do so. Defendant’s pregnancy was an inducing factor of the marriage, but this resulted in a miscarriage.

The court found defendant sane, and granted an interlocutory decree of divorce to plaintiff, dividing the small quantity of community property equally. No alimony was awarded to defendant.

Defendant contends the evidence did not establish that she [462]treated her husband with extreme cruelty. An appellate court’s inquiry begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence contradicted or uncontradieted which will support the trial court’s finding. (Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [299 P.2d 231].) Unless the evidence is so slight as to indicate an abuse of discretion, this finding will not be disturbed. (Keener v. Keener, 18 Cal.2d 445, 447 [116 P.2d 1].) The discretion of the trial court in determining whether extreme cruelty is established is to be afforded considerable latitude, since it is in a position to hear the testimony, observe the witnesses, and evaluate their candor and personal characteristics. (Polk v. Polk, 50 Cal.App.2d 653, 657 [123 P.2d 550]; Speer v. Speer, 209 Cal.App.2d 233, 236-237 [25 Cal.Rptr. 729].) There are no arbitrary rules for determining what evidence establishes grievous mental suffering. Ungemach v. Ungemach, 61 Cal.App.2d 29 [142 P.2d 99], at page 34 states: