Feltgen v. Feltgen

PrBscott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Chancellor denied appellant’s prayer for an absolute divorce on the ground of voluntary separation of the parties for the statutory period, and she has appealed. She names five questions as being presented in the appeal: the first three claim that errors were committed by the Chancellor in not holding (and refusing to permit her to adduce all of her available evidence to show) that the original separation of the parties was voluntary; the last two contend that the evidence produced requires a decree for an absolute divorce on the ground of voluntary separation. We find it necessary to determine the last two only, as will be shown below.

The parties were married in 1937, and two' daughters (both now adults and college graduates) were born as a result thereof. Both of the parties are about 59 years of age, and are natives of Luxemburg. The husband came to this country as a young man and obtained employment as an expert machinist at the ³⁴ United States Navy Yard in Washington, D. C. In 1937, he sent to Luxemburg for the appellant, who is the sister of the wife of his twin brother. Prior to the marriage, appellee had purchased a dwelling on Fairfax Road, Bethesda, Maryland, and title to this property was transferred to both names shortly after the marriage, and is still so held.

The marriage seems to have been a happy one until at least 1948, when they decided to purchase another dwelling on Sleaford Road, also in Bethesda, which was a more convenient and safer location from which the daughters might attend school. The purchase of this property caused the first apparent dissension between the parties. The purchase required $7,500 in cash, and the wife, according to the husband, demanded that title be placed in her name, alone. He objected, but all of his savings were deposited in her sole name (she was never gainfully employed) ; so she prevailed.

Soon after the parties moved into this new home, the husband occupied a space in the basement, so that most of the rooms upstairs might be rented (as well as the house on Fairfax Road). The wife and daughters also lived in the basement in the summers, but retained one room upstairs for the three in the winters. It seems appropriate to say here, somewhat by way of interpolation, that the exact and precise meaning of the parties, both in their testimony and letters, is difficult to ascertain, due, apparently, to their lack of complete familiarity with the use of the English language. The parties ceased to have sexual relations together at least as early as 1956.

He contends that she refused to continue relations with him; she claims that the cessation thereof was because “he was so vicious always and cruel to me [although few specific incidents of purported cruelty or viciousness were named] From the date of their marriage until their separation in 1960, the husband worked at his regular occupation and also worked Saturdays, Sundays and night-times at odd jobs—from 1951 to 1956, he earned some $20,400 from the odd jobs. For some time after 1948, the wife rented the Fairfax Road house ³⁵ and the rooms in their residence for about $200 per month. From the date of their marriage until the separation, some 23 years, the husband delivered his entire salary from the Navy Yard and all of his income from the odd jobs to the wife (with minuscular exceptions), who, in addition, received all of the rents. The husband was allowed very little money for himself.

If he needed gasoline for his automobile, the wife would give him a “couple of dollars,” or give it to one of the daughters to go with him to the filling station in order to be certain the money was spent for gasoline. He testified that he did not obtain a new suit of clothes during the entire first 23 years of married life, although his wife did purchase his work clothes. After 1957, he was not permitted above the basement in the house (without good cause being shown), for fear that he would damage the rugs, furniture or painting. He was not permitted to watch television by himself, except very late at night when the others had retired.

And at least one of the daughters had become very disrespectful to him. A reading of the record supports the finding of the Chancellor that the wife’s insistence upon handling all of the family finances is one of the main reasons, if not the main one, for the separation of the parties. The husband stated that there were three occasions, beginning in 1957, when he did not pay over his entire salary to his wife. On the first, he took out five dollars for his own necessaries and turned the balance over to her.

On this occasion, the turning of the balance over to her “smoothed her” out. On the second, the police were summoned; and on the third he was told to get out, which he did on June 5, 1960, and went to live at the Fairfax Road house, where he still resides. (Additional facts from testimony will be added later.) Ten days thereafter, on June 15, 1960, the wife filed suit for an absolute divorce, alleging desertion, in 1953, of her by her husband. The husband answered and filed a cross-bill praying an absolute divorce on the ground of constructive desertion.

The case came on for