Elfont v. Elfont

Pattison, J., delivered tbe opinion of the Court. In this case, Robert L. Elfont, by bis father and next friend, Jonas Elfont, on tbe 24th day of December, 1930, filed a bill in tbe Circuit- Court Em. 2 of Baltimore City against Laurette Elfont, tbe wife of Robert, asking for tbe annulment of tbe marriage of Robert and Laurette, which was. celebrated on tbe 20th day of August, 1926. Tbe bill alleged that, at tbe time of tbe marriage and prior thereto, Robert L. Elfont “was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding tbe consequences of Ms act,” and that he “continued to be of unsound mind after bis marriage, and still is of the same mental incapacity.” Tbe court, after bearing evidence on tbe bill and answer filed thereto, on the 29th day of April, 1931, passed a decree annulling the marriage. The appeal in this case is from that decree. ⁴⁶⁰ The record discloses that in.

June, 1925, Robert L. Elfont, while visiting Asbury Park, H. J., met* the defendant, Laurette Elfont, who' was spending her vacation there. Her home was in New York City, where she was in the advertising business at a salary of fifty dollars per week. Robert remained in Asbury Park for about a week after meeting Laurette1, and during that time they saw much of each other. After their separation, they corresponded, and he frequently saw her at her home in New York on occasions upon which he was required to1 be there in the transaction of business.

On August 20th, 1926, over a year after they first met, when Laurette Elfont was on her way to the south to take a position which had been offered her, she and Robert met and were married in the City of Washington. As shown by the plaintiff in support of the allegations of his bill, Robert L. Elfont entered the army of the United States on the 6th day of September, 1917, and was discharged January 11, 1919. On July 17, 1919, while in the Mayview Insane Asylum at Pittsburgh, Pa., he filed a claim alleging a mental disease. Thereafter he was in a number of other like institutions.

In 1924 he was examined by three doctors of the Veterans’ Bureau, who recommended a total rating for “dementia praecox, catatonic type.” This rating was approved by the Board of Appeals, and on August 6th, 1924, the central office gave a permanent total rating of “dementia praecox, paranoid type, incident to service, incompetent on and after Hovember 19, 1921.” On August 4th, 1922, prior to the above adjudication of August 6th, 1924, it seems that an order of the Circuit Court Ho. 2 was passed by which Jonas Elfont, the father of the appellee1, was appointed guardian of the estate of the appellee, and authorized to receive compensation awarded to the son by the United States Veterans’ Bureau, amounting to $150 per month. At this time, Robert, at the request of his father, was permitted to live with them, and the record does not disclose that he was at any time thereafter, before 'September, 1930, in any institution of the class hereinbefore mentioned. ⁴⁶¹ Dr. Levy, wlio is connected with the Veterans’ Bureau, testified that he examined Robert L. Elfont on two occasions and had seen him on several other occasions at the bureau. The first examination was on July 7th, 1923, a report of which he was permitted to read in order to refresh his memory as to his findings. The court asked Dr. Levy: “What was your conclusion?

Answer: The conclusion at that time was that the patient -was suffering from dementia, praecox of paranoid type, which diagnosis is based on the fact that the patient was suffering from defects of adjustment in which * * *” At this point in his testimony the court said: “Well, now, just for an ex-countryman, and not so long- an ex-, and for the recorvl, tell us what dementia praecox is. Answer: Dementia praecox is a term -which is applied by Doctor De-seron to a type of mental disease which formerly was believed to occur on or about puberty. In other words, under this particular term, it would simply mean a dementia of puberty. . The term has since been changed under a new classification.

Under this particular term now, it would include dem&ntia. praecox, the chief features being a dementia, enlarged brain,, a marked emotional leveling, so that the patient’s mind is entirely split in so far as the thought processes are concerned. For example, he may consider that he is an individual of some import and yet at the same time realize the fact he is only a lesser being as far as his conduct is concerned. “The Court: What effect does it have on a person’s judgment or will ? Answer: The judgment is markedly defective because the insight and this small mental splitting is-not known to him. He lives in a, world of unreality, at the same time making a type of adjustment in which he carries on a poor contact, don’t know his real existence, at the same-time- never giving up the unreality.” The doctor, when asked by the court if Elfo-nt was capable of making a valid deed or contract, said he would say “no”.

The witness, in speaking of the prognosis of the case-, said it was bad “because there is, a condition, a progressive condition, and he becomes deteriorated and with this deteriora ⁴⁶² fcion, his insight, judgment and so forth, gradually are completely lost.” Dr. Levy next examined Elfont on May 27, 1924, and his report as to that examination is about the same as that of the first. “Q. Did you examine him after 1924 ? A. I recall seeing Mr. Elfont on several occasions. The exact dates I could not give.” The doctor, though not having examined him since 1924, and having only seen him on several occasions thereafter, expressed the opinion that he had developed into a chronic progressive condition, and had become steadily worse. On cross-examination the question was asked: Aren’t there times when they are able to exercise good judgment?

His answer was: “As far as the question of exhibiting good judgment at timesi is concerned, I will have to state that at times they may do' things which are within the range of rational, but the whole basic thing is that right on top of that something of an episodic nature will occur to offset that. “Q. But a particular thing may be an exercise of good judgment, is that it? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Bobert Lee Elfont, from February to July, 1929, conducted successfully and at a profit a retail shoe business in Pennsylvania with a stock of from seven to eight thousand dollars in trade and attended to all the incidents -of the conduct of that business. Can you tell us whether, under the circumstances, you feel he was able at that time to execute a valid deed or contract ?

A. The only answer I can make to that question is judging from my examinations of Mr. Elfont at the several times I have seen him. I don’t believe, knowing his mental condition as I do, that he would be capable of meeting the business problems, and so forth, or the high type of judgment to successfully conduct a shoe business. Q. A man with dementia, praecox could not do' it, is that it? A. Hot consistently, no.

Q. Would you say that persons suffering with dementia praecox don’t have lucid intervals? A. Ho, I don’t say that at all. They do have lucid intervals, but the great difficulty is that these periods^ are rather short. The chief difficulties are these marked episodes where the patient goes off on a marked ⁴⁶³ tangent.

Q. Would you say that this patient, Robert L. Elfont, has lucid intervals ? A. At this time ? I am not able to pass on that.” Dr. Warner, who- was also connected with the Veterans’ Bureau, first examined Robert L. Elfont on Jnly 3rd, 1920. lie was asked what his examination disclosed. His answer was: “He was quite abnormal and extreme in conduct and thought.

He was seclusive and suspicious, nervous and irrittable, restless; he suffered with insomnia and generally nervous. He was suspicious, lie suffered with depression and ideas of self-reference, and he had some persecutory ideas at that time and the conclusion was that he was suffering with a mental aberration called dementia praecox. That was the diagnosis established at that time.” Dr. Warner made another examination on June 1st, 1921. He was asked what his conclusions were from that examination.

Before he answered this question, the conrt asked: “Doctor, were his symptoms or mental infirmities sufficient at that time to affect his judgment and will power ? A. His judgment and will power were very much enfeebled at that time. The Court: Was he capable of managing his ordinary affairs? A. Hot conclusively at that time.

His judgment was erratic, he was emotionally unstable and irritable, he was not able to keep at anything, for any length of time. He would get tired and stop work and then have an idea that he wanted to- do- something else.” On October 20th, 1921, Dr. Warner made- the third examination. The conclusion he reached from that examination was that at that time Elfont “was unable to maintain a continuous adjustment. He seemed to- be indifferent and was evidently showing some slight deterioration in his emotional reactions; resentful attitude; he has enfeebled judgment, paranoidal; critical and resentful attitude at that time. * * * The diagnostic conclusion was dementia praecox, paranoidal, badly adjusted.” A further examination was made by Dr. Warner on August 7th, 1923.

His conclusions from that examination did not differ materially from those of the former examinations. The next examination made by Dr. ⁴⁶⁴ Warner was on February 6th, 1927. He said: “At that time he showed practically the same reactions and paranoid-ism. Ideas of self-reference, suspicions; irritability; poor judgment and unable to adjust himself socially.” The diagnosis was dementia praecox.

When the doctor was asked if the dementia praecox was in a worse form than indicated by previous examinations, he answered that he thought it was about the same condition. His physical condition was normal. This was the last examination made by the witness, though he saw him for a little while in the autumn of 1930. When asked what Elfont’s condition was at that time he answered that he seemed much depressed. “Q. Was he in better condition than when you examined him in 1927 ?

A. No, he seemed to be worse at that particular time.” The witness was then asked if Elfont was competent to enter into any contract in the fall of 1926. He answered: “Well, from those reports I would say no, as far as his ability to comprehend and to meet the complications or the implications of the contract. I think that his judgment being enfeebled, as indicated in the earlier reports, I would have to answer in the negative.” “Q. Your diagnosis showed dementia praecox. Was that dementia praecox temporary or permanent and continuous in its nature?

A. It was permanent and continuous.” On cross-examination, the witness was asked: “Doctor, you say when you last saw him that he seemed rather depressed. That was in 1930, I believe? A. Last autumn, yes. Q. Wasn’t the father, Jonas Elfont, present at the time?

A. Yes. Q. Wasn’t he, as the wife says, brow beating Hobert, wasn’t he yelling and hollering at him at the time ? A. The father was very much excited at the time and seemed to be much disturbed about conditions. Q. Wasn’t his conduct towards his son such that it would depress any person, normal or abnormal?

A. I don’t think it could have been fully so. It may have aggravated it somewhat.. Q. Doctor, you really don’t know whether or not this man had lucid intervals during the period between 1923 and 1927, is that correct? A. Well, I did not see him between those dates.

Q. Then you ⁴⁶⁵ really would, not know ? A. Not positive; no, sir. Q. At this time you cannot say whether he has lucid intervals or not, can you ? A. No.” Dr. Murdock, who is connected with the Sheppard-Pratt Hospital, and who specializes in psychiatry, testified that Robert L. Elfont entered the hospital September 3rd, 1930, and was discharged February 10, 1931.

He was examined on October 8, 1930, and was found to be suffering from dementia, praecox. «Jonas Elfont, the father, testified that in 1922 he was appointed guardian for his son Robert, who had been found by the Veterans’ Bureau to be an incompetent, and continued to act as such until about three months prior to the trial of this case. The record does not disclose whether there was a guardian thereafter, or, if so, who that guardian was. The father testified as to the different hospitals or institutions in which his son had been placed for the treatment of his mental condition. He also- stated that, shortly after the marriage, he had told Laurette of his son’s mental condition and that his son was receiving money from the government because of that condition.

In answer to the question whether his son, after his marriage, had not been employed by himself or his other son in the management of one or more of his or, his son’s stores, the father said: “Not that I know. He never carried on anything for me or my son, but only this he did. I will tell you.” He then proceeded to make a statement which was not at all responsive to the question; and when asked why he had waited from August 20th, 1926, the date of the marriage, until the year 1930, before taking proceedings to annul the marriage, he likewise failed to give any intelligent answer thereto, but made charges against the wife, and, upon objection being made thereto, his answer was stricken out by the court. In denial of the allegations of the bill, it was shown by the defendant that, after her marriage with Robert Ij.

Elfont, she returned with him to- Baltimore to- the home- of his parents. As testified by her, his father was not at home at the time, though this fact is denied by the father, and Laurette ⁴⁶⁶ was received by the mother alone. Shortly after their marriage they went to New York City -to visit the wife’s mother. It is, we think, clear from the evidence in the case that the marriage of the son was not at all satisfactory to- the father.

It was not until the early part of 1927 that Laurette learned that her husband had been found by the Veterans’ Bureau to1 be an incompetent, and that his father had been named as his guardian. This information was imparted to her by the father, Jonas Elfont. Erom the time of their marriage in 1926 to September, 1930, Bobert and his wife lived together and were constantly with each other, with the exception of occasional visits that she made to her relatives in New York City. On June 26th, 1927, a child was born of the marriage, but it lived only a few hours.

During the period between 1926, the date of their marriage, and 1930, Bobert was engaged in various occupations or enterprises. In 1927, as testified to by his wife, Bobert was managing a store for his father or brother in Pennsylvania; and another time he was engaged in the operation or conduct of a store in TJniontown, Pa. While in New York, to which place he went to be with his wife, who was in the hospital, he was employed as a salesman by the Y Shoe Company, and at another time by Weber & Heilbronner, also as a salesman; and when living in Washington he was employed by Woodward & Lothrop in the men’s furnishing department; and the wife at the time was employed at the Palais Boyal. And there is not found in the record any satisfactory denial of these facts.

In September, 1930, Bobert, at the instance of his wife, entered the Sheppard-Pratt Hospital, where, as disclosed by the record, he was said by the staff of the hospital to be suffering with dementia praecox. Immediately preceding his stay at Sheppard-Pratt, he had been at Spring Grove, where he was frequently visited by his wife. He was dissatisfied at Spring Grove, and at the instance of his wife he became a patient of the Sheppard-Pratt Hospital, where, as we have said; he remained until discharged in February, 1931. The wife, when asked what was the reason for placing him there, ⁴⁶⁷ said: “His father abducted him and subjected him