Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, Ursula N. Goldschmiedt, sued her husband, Harry R. Goldschmiedt, the appellee, for custody of the minor child of the parties and child support. He countered with a cross-bill for divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the grounds of adultery. The chancellor granted the husband the divorce, awarded custody to the husband and denied the wife’s motion for costs and counsel fees on appeal.

We shall affirm the action of the chancellor. The courts have long recognized that it is a rare situation when proof of the actual act of adultery is produced. In Breault v. Breault, 250 Md. 173 , 242 A. 2d 116 (1968), Judge Marbury said for the Court: “It is the established law of this state that where divorce is sought on the ground of adultery that the adultery may be shown by circumstantial evidence and that an actual act of adultery need not be witnessed. Patzschke v. Patzschke, 249 Md. 53 , 238 A. 2d 119 ; Riley v. Riley, 239 Md. 363 , 211 A. 2d 748 ; Swoyer v. Swoyer, 157 Md. 18 , 145 Atl. 190 .

However, to establish adultery the circumstantial evidence must clearly establish (1) a disposition on the part of the defendant and the paramour to commit adultery, ²⁴ and (2) an opportunity to commit the offense. Patzschke v. Patzschke, supra; Blankenship v. Blankenship, 239 Md. 498 , 212 A. 2d 294 ; Dougherty v. Dougherty, 187 Md. 21 , 48 A. 2d 451 .” Id. at 178. In this case the wife presents the interesting theory that “[ajssuming that an adulterous disposition was proven to the court’s satisfaction, the court erred in finding there was ample opportunity to commit adultery based on the fact that the wife lived alone with her seven-year-old child.” It is undisputed that there was a frequent male visitor to the home of the wife. He is married and has a family.

Mrs. Goldschmiedt herself testified that he usually stopped by her home after work getting there at 6:00 or 6:30 P.M. and staying “about an hour”, when they occasionally had dinner together and occasionally had a drink together. According to her statement he has embraced her on occasion and kissed her when she “ [felt] very blue and very down, very discouraged.” There was a private detective who described one such embrace as “kissing and hugging and a clinch for almost five minutes”. A neighbor called as a witness by the wife was obliged to admit having seen the embraces. Mrs. Goldschmiedt admitted that she “might have” embraced and kissed the gentleman in the driveway of the home where she was living after she and her husband separated.

The alleged paramour, according to Mrs. Goldschmiedt, came to her house “four or five times a week” to “[m]ow the lawn, fix the lawn mower, carry the garbage out” and do “innumerable things”. Mrs. Goldschmiedt and the alleged paramour own a racing car together. They have been out of town on at least three weekends for the purpose of attending automobile racing events. They, of course, protest their innocence on each and every such occasion.

The argument put forth by Mrs. Goldschmiedt, that the chancellor erred in concluding there was opportunity for adultery because the wife was living alone with a ²⁵ seven-year-old child, is not convincing. The chancellor had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and to observe their demeanor. We cannot say that he was clearly in error in concluding that there was the disposition to commit the act of adultery (as Mrs. Goldschmiedt apparently admits) and the opportunity to commit the act. Maryland Rule 886 a.

To say that there was not