Ouellette v. Ouellette

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this divorce action, in which the husband (Raymond S. Ouellette) filed a bill on the ground of adultery and the wife (Blanche T. Ouellette) filed a cross-bill on the ground of voluntary separation, the chancellor granted the husband an absolute divorce and awarded custody of the children to the father, and the wife appealed. The questions on appeal are: (i) whether the court erred in granting the husband a divorce for adultery; (ii) whether the court erred in denying the wife a divorce for voluntary separation; and (iii) whether the court erred in granting custody of the two daughters to the father on the assumption that the mother had committed adultery. Shortly after the wife was injured in an automobile accident in which the wife of the paramour (Cornelius W. Alexander) was killed, he began paying undue attention to the wife of the appellee.

Subsequently, when marital troubles arose between the parties and the husband became suspicious, he discovered his wife and the paramour in an automobile and saw them kissing each other. When he attempted to persuade his wife to get out of the automobile, a fight ensued between the two men. Thereafter the parties, conforming to the financial arrangements they had made between themselves, entered into a separation agreement and the wife, taking the two daughters with her, left the marital home and took up residence in an apartment of her own. Later, the husband, claiming that he had been coerced into making it, attempted to repudiate the agreement.

Both before and after the execution of the separation agreement, the husband and a private detective he had hired, acting separately and on different occasions, had on several in ⁶⁰⁷ stances seen the wife and paramour engaged in actions evincing an adulterous disposition at times when they had the opportunity to commit adultery. At the trial, in addition to the production of detailed evidence, of which the above is a summary, the paramour, besides testifying as to having spent considerable time with the wife and as to having hugged and kissed her on numerous occasions, admitted having often been alone in the apartment with her and as to going on out-of-town trips with her, but denied planning to marry her or having sexual intercourse with her. Aside from vigorously contesting the grant of the divorce and the award of the children to the appellee, the appellant, claiming that the evidence firmly established that the parties had voluntarily lived separate and apart without cohabitation for the statutory period of eighteen months in conformity with the terms of the written separation agreement, which was made in good faith and was still in force, contends that she should have been granted an absolute divorce from the husband and awarded custody of the children. But, even if the evidence was such as to justify the granting of a divorce on the ground that that the parties had voluntarily separated, the husband nevertheless had a right to a divorce based on acts of adultery committed prior to the expiration of the eighteen months required for a voluntary separation.

Holofcener v. Holofcener, 242 Md. 727 , 219 A. 2d 839 (1966). We think that the chancellor was clearly right in