Brandsma v. Brandsma

South Dakota Supreme Court

Brandsma v. Brandsma

318 N.W.2d 318, 1982 S.D. LEXIS 300

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1982

Docket13359

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 318 N.W.2d 318 (Brandsma v. Brandsma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brandsma v. Brandsma, 318 N.W.2d 318, 1982 S.D. LEXIS 300 (S.D. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing, with prejudice, appellant Marjorie A. Brandsma’s complaint for a divorce. We reverse and remand.

Appellant sought a divorce from appellee, Robert L. Brandsma. Her cause of action was based upon extreme cruelty. The trial court found that appellee had struck and was verbally abusive to appellant on several occasions without just cause. The court concluded, however, that these acts did not constitute extreme cruelty and that there were no grounds upon which a divorce could be granted.

The record is replete with instances of appellee’s outbursts of temper directed at appellant throughout the years of this marriage. Appellant withstood the physical abuse and, as the trial court characterized them, “verbal beatings,” in an attempt to keep the family together for the benefit of their children. She broke the pattern after appellee struck her in the head so hard that she had a severe headache and dizziness. She continued to live with appellee only until the wedding of their youngest daughter was over. This action followed.

We are convinced that the showing of verbal and physical abuse in this case was sufficient to constitute extreme cruelty within the meaning of SDCL 25 — 4—4, which provides: “Extreme cruelty is the infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering upon the other, by one party to the marriage.” SDCL 25 — 4-4. In a marital setting, the definition differs according to the personalities of the parties involved. Pochop v. Pochop, 89 S.D. 466, 233 N.W.2d 806 (1975). The evidence must be viewed “in the light of the full context of the relationship between the parties and not in the narrow light of isolated incidents...” Palmer v. Palmer, 281 N.W.2d 263, 264 n.3 (S.D.1979). See also Watt v. Watt, 312 N.W.2d 707 (S.D.1981).

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MORGAN, J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing, with prejudice, appellant Marjorie A. Brandsma’s complaint for a divorce. We reverse and remand.

Appellant sought a divorce from appellee, Robert L. Brandsma. Her cause of action was based upon extreme cruelty. The trial court found that appellee had struck and was verbally abusive to appellant on several occasions without just cause. The court concluded, however, that these acts did not constitute extreme cruelty and that there were no grounds upon which a divorce could be granted.

The record is replete with instances of appellee’s outbursts of temper directed at appellant throughout the years of this marriage. Appellant withstood the physical abuse and, as the trial court characterized them, “verbal beatings,” in an attempt to keep the family together for the benefit of their children. She broke the pattern after appellee struck her in the head so hard that she had a severe headache and dizziness. She continued to live with appellee only until the wedding of their youngest daughter was over. This action followed.

We are convinced that the showing of verbal and physical abuse in this case was sufficient to constitute extreme cruelty within the meaning of SDCL 25 — 4—4, which provides: “Extreme cruelty is the infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering upon the other, by one party to the marriage.” SDCL 25 — 4-4. In a marital setting, the definition differs according to the personalities of the parties involved. Pochop v. Pochop, 89 S.D. 466, 233 N.W.2d 806 (1975). The evidence must be viewed “in the light of the full context of the relationship between the parties and not in the narrow light of isolated incidents...” Palmer v. Palmer, 281 N.W.2d 263, 264 n.3 (S.D.1979). See also Watt v. Watt, 312 N.W.2d 707 (S.D.1981).

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MORGAN, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 N.W.2d 318, 1982 S.D. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandsma-v-brandsma-sd-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack