Liccini v. Liccini

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal, the principal question presented to us for decision is whether or not the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Pugh, J.) erred in granting the husband, the appellee Luke L. Liccini, who was the plaintiff below, a divorce a mensa et thoro from his wife, the appellant Theresa M. Liccini, on the ground of constructive desertion. The parties were married in the District of Columbia on October 23, 1949, and resided in Montgomery County for approximately 15 years prior to the filing of the bill of complaint by the husband on April 25, 1968, alleging constructive desertion by the wife and praying for a divorce a mensa et thoro, custody of the minor children and other relief. 1 The husband is 44 years of age and is an aeronautical engineer employed by the National Aeronautical and Space Agency. Two children were born of the marriage, a daughter, Lisa, who at the time of the filing of the bill of complaint was 15 years of age and a son, Mark, who was 18 years of age at that time.

The daughter resides with the wife; the son resides with another family. The marriage was a reasonably satisfactory one until 1965 from which time, according to the husband’s testimony, “it has been a pretty terrible situation.” He fur ⁴⁶⁴ ther testified: “In 1965 my wife started drinking on a daily basis; and she started finding excuses and things to tell me, doing things to harass, calling me all different kinds of names, blaming everything on me and going to some pretty extreme ends.” He stated that on January 1, 1967, there was a cessation of marital relations and from that date until April 12, 1968, he continued to occupy separate beds in the same bedroom. On April 12, 1968, the husband left the bedroom and went down to the basement of the marital home where he remained until he left the home entirely on October 19, 1968. In regard to the wife’s attempt at a reconciliation in 1967, the husband testified: “Q. Since your leaving Mrs. Liccini in cessation of cohabitation, has there been any time that she has asked you to reconcile?

A. Reconcile. Yes, I say, she has asked for a reconciliation. “Q. When? A.. She’s asked that we try to straighten out our troubles, and I agreed.

This was mid-’67. And I indicated to her that from my point, the way to do it was to, for her to make a strong effort to stop drinking and we’d go and see a marriage counselor or we would go get someone who would act as a mediator, even to the extent I offered she have someone, a friend or a relative of hers, even, to act as a mediator. “And she refused under those circumstances and she has always refused to stop — my request that she stop drinking — and she stop and try to straighten out and go to someone who can talk to us, because it’s impossible for the two of us to talk together; or it was. I assume it still is.” The wife continued to drink on a daily basis and on one occasion at her brother’s home, started an argument and called the husband names; it was “quite an emo ⁴⁶⁵ tional scene.” These arguments and name-calling incidents “occurred almost every day, practically, I (the husband) say six days out of seven.” They were initiated by the wife. The husband further testified: “She called me names like ‘homosexual,’ ‘fairy,’ ‘lazy’; all I was interested in was work; ‘cold fish’; that I had no friends; that education really means nothing, I had nothing, we lived like poor people; and I’m a son-of-a-bastard; ugly, that I wasn’t a man; that— “Q. Before whom?

Were these made before anyone other than just you? A. Oh, yes. They were made in front of my children, made in front of the children’s friends. And she has also said this in front of other people. “Q. You say in front of ‘other people’; do you recall any specific instances?

A. Yes. In January —I’m sorry; December 1967 — -we had been bowling and she invited people we bowled against that night and people in our own team to come to the house after bowling. Bowling was from 9 :30 till about 1:00, so this occurred around 1:00 o’clock in the morning. And the people that showed up was Mr. and Mrs. Hagy and two relatives of theirs who happened to be visiting just for the holidays and had come up to the bowling alleys just to watch the bowling. “They were the only people that showed up and at that time we sat down, she started talking about the fact that we hadn’t had any sex relationships, marital relationships, since January of 1967.

And she started to proceed to tell her concept of the reasons, and— “Q. Which were what, Mr. Liccini? A. Her concept was that I wasn’t a man and that maybe there was something wrong with me mentally, something wrong with me physically. ⁴⁶⁶ “We tried to stop her, we tried to change the subject. I tried, I told her to stop. I told her that it was embarrassing the guests.

The guests tried to stop her, tried to change the subject. “And this went on for quite a little while and finally, after about forty-five minutes or so, an hour, they got up and left and went home.” A neighbor and friend, Louis Hagy, testified: “Q. You then after bowling went to the Liccini home ? A. Right. “Q. Can you tell us what, if anything, occurred then at the home? A. Well, we just did a lot of talking. She prepared us, Mrs. Liccini prepared us a snack.

There was a lot of conversation going on back and forth. Some was uncalled for. There was one instance, we were speaking of children — our children, her children, their children — and Mrs. Liccini spoke up and said that she didn’t have to worry because shé had had no sexual relations over a year. “Q. With her husband? A. She didn’t say. “Q. Did Mr. Liccini engage in the conversation?

A. Yes. He spoke a few times that I can remember to, something to the effect that she shouldn’t speak this way, or wait till later. I’m not very sure of the exact words. “Q. Did he attempt to stop her from speaking along that line? A. Yes.

We all tried. I myself did, too. We tried to divert to other conversations, other subjects. It just wasn’t the proper thing to be doing. “Q. Was it a source of embarrassment to you?

A. Yes; I believe to most of us; to Mrs. Liccini — Mr. Liccini — too. He see,med like he was embarrassed.” The husband ■ stated that as a result of these accusations by his wife, he “just started losing all self-respect ⁴⁶⁷ on my part” and was fearful for his emotional and physical well-being. Shortly before October 19, 1968, when the husband left the marital home, the wife came down to the basement where the husband was sleeping, started arguing, harassing him, calling him names, broke an ashtray and an alarm clock and turned over a coffee table. The husband tried to restrain her when she began throwing things on the floor whereupon the wife slipped and fell, hitting her head on the floor.

The parties ended up by wrestling on the floor. The husband further testified that he indicated to his wife that he would be out in a week’s time and that reconciliation was most unlikely as he was “fairly convinced that nothing would solve our problems.” The son, Mark, testified for his father that his mother drank and frequently argued with his father. He testified that his mother called his father “a homosexual, cold” and “a son-of-a-bastard.” She stated to the husband “you never gave me love” and “you are a cold fish.” The son further testified that he believed the parties had not had sexual relations since January 1, 1967, because his mother would call his father a homosexual and that he did not have prowess as a man. On examination by the Chancellor in regard to the effects on his father’s health, Mark testified, “he's almost a broken man” * * * “His — he had nerves — his hands, his hands get these things on them, it’s just nerves, because she’s into him so much.

And one time, I believe, a couple of times, she’d hit him a few times.” He stated further, “There was the fact that, up yelling all night long, a man can’t even sleep, he don’t go to work the next morning.” Mark also stated that he had noticed a change in his father’s health after he moved to the basement and testified “he wasn’t as vúbrant as he used to be.” The wife described her husband as “a quiet and somewhat withdrawn individual, completely dedicated to his work, who devoted little time to his family and even less to her.” She admitted drinking but attributed the drink ⁴⁶⁸ ing to the marital difficulties. She admitted that there had been no marital relations since January 1, 1967, but although she had sought to have relations, her husband had rejected her advances. She admitted calling him names during arguments but denied that she criticized his manhood. The daughter, Lisa, testified for the wife that she had been present