Maryland case law › Reicher v. Reicher

Reicher v. Reicher

196 Md. 494 (1950) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedCollins, J.✓ Good law
HoldingTwo appeals by Anna F.

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are two appeals by Anna F. Reicher. One is from a decree granting to the appellee, Harry Reicher, a divorce a mensa et thoro on the grounds of desertion on a bill of complaint filed by him on October 11, 1949. The other is an appeal from a judgment rendered, by the trial judge without a jury, in favor of Harry Reicher in a suit at law filed against him by the appellant on July 13, 1949.

The parties to this suit, both of whom had had children by former marriages, first met in August, 1948. He had been a roomer in her home. They were married three months later and continued to live in her home. She says that he was very attentive to her before the marriage and gave her several valuable presents and pressed for an early wedding.

She claims that a few days prior to 497 the marriage appellee approached her for a loan for the purchase of Christmas merchandise for his haberdashery store, to be repaid immediately after Christmas. The daughter and mother of the appellee also state that this $2,115.16 advanced by the appellant to the appellee was a loan to be repaid after Christmas. This is the amount for which she entered suit against the appellee at law. The appellant borrowed $2,000.00 of this money on her life insurance policy and the balance of $115.16 was her salary check.

As the appellant had a position at Fort Meade and was required to stay there during the week, these parties lived together only over weekends. The appellant says that after the marriage the appellee slapped her on two occasions and pushed her once. She claims that without her knowledge he collected rents from other apartments in the house in which these parties lived, and which belonged to her, amounting to $168.00 per month and also compelled her to turn over to him her salary checks. She further states that on Friday evening, January 21st, 1949, when she returned from her work at Fort Meade for the weekend, she, the appellee and her mother went to her daughter’s home for supper.

There the appellee demanded her salary check. When she said that she would not give the monthly check to him again, he flew into a rage, threatened to send her to the hospital and slapped her. This is corroborated by her daughter and her mother. The appellant’s daughter immediately ordered the appellee from her home.

The record does not show where he spent that night. The following day, in a telephone conversation, the appellee was told not to come to her house again. Later that day, with his son, he went to the home and found the appellant there with her family and with her attorney. He was ordered out of the house by his wife and her attorney.

He took some of his clothes and left. He returned to her house the next day with another son and his son-in-law and took away his remaining clothes. He says at that time his wife told him that he could not stay there. The parties have not lived together since. 498 Several months later the appellee heard that appellant had had an accident.

He says he called her and asked whether he could see her. She replied that he could see her if he would bring her her sun glasses. He said he then took her the sun glasses and asked her “about getting together”. She then laughed at him and said: “You will have to build me a bungalow”.

Later, appellee’s son came to see appellant and asked her whether there was any chance of a reconciliation. She admits that she told him “a reconciliation was impossible”. Appellee denies he ever slapped her or collected the rents from her house. He says she never gave him her salary checks.

These were deposited in their joint account. Appellee said: “Your Honor, every time I asked her to stay home she said, T made a mistake in the whole marriage, I thought you had more money than that.’ I said, T told you I am a poor man, I haven’t got anything; as much as I got, I cashed my bonds and helped you fix that furniture up.’ She said, ‘You aren’t the type of ma.n I want to marry anyway, you are too doggone dumb, you are a greenhorn, you don’t know how to write and read.’ I said, ‘No, I don’t know how to write and read, but I am honest enough to help you out with a home and stay home.’ She said, ‘Nothing doing, we have to make some kind of an arrangement to get this separation.’ I

This is a preview of Reicher v. Reicher. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.