Commonwealth Ex Rel. Carmack v. Carmack

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Carmack v. Carmack

407 A.2d 1314, 268 Pa. Super. 198, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2706

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 26, 1979

Docket10

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 407 A.2d 1314 (Commonwealth Ex Rel. Carmack v. Carmack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Carmack v. Carmack, 407 A.2d 1314, 268 Pa. Super. 198, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2706 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

MONTGOMERY, Judge:

This is an appeal by the defendant, Grandon H. Carmack, from an order of support in the amount of $20.00 per week, plus a $20.00 service charge made in favor of his wife, Judith Carmack. Appellant contends he had cause for a divorce on the grounds of adultery and indignities and, therefore, his obligation to support his wife had ended.

The parties were married in 1968 and separated July 10, 1977 when the defendant left his wife and the marital home. He refused to return, although requested to do so by his wife.

[200]*200ADULTERY

Following the separation, the wife developed a relationship with a Harry W. Moeller, permitted him to spend a night in her apartment, and had sexual relations with him on two occasions. Recognizing that neither the defenses of condonation nor connivance, nor the degree of emotional disturbance suffered by the wife could successfully be asserted by the wife, the lower court proceeded to consider the question whether the conduct of the defendant justified the entry of an order which would otherwise be denied because of the wife’s conduct. This conduct consisted of his association with a Mrs. Rita Johnson for two years prior to the separation, and thereafter, of such a nature that adultery on his part could reasonably be inferred from the facts and circumstances and it was so found by the lower court. Thus, the question arises whether the wife’s adultery bars her from any support regardless of his conduct. Relying on Hellman v. Hellman, 246 Pa.Super. 536, 371 A.2d 964 (1977), the lower court held that the husband’s conduct was relevant and should be considered in determining a wife’s right to support in order to avoid inequities. We must agree that the holding in Heilman is that a wife’s right to support is not automatically terminated upon proof of her adultery, and that the conduct of the husband must be considered in determining that issue under the circumstances.

On appeal, an order of support will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In the present case, we are not prepared to say such abuse is present in light of the evidence showing the adulterous relationship the respondent maintained with Mrs. Johnson for two years prior to the separation and continuing thereafter, his abandonment of the marital home, his refusal of the wife’s attempts at reconciliation, and the circumstances under which her two indiscretions occurred.

INDIGNITIES

We find no merit in appellant’s argument that he has suffered indignities to his person to such an extent that he [201]*201would be entitled to a divorce on this ground as well. Since his conduct with Mrs. Johnson created the suspicion from which much of his wife’s criticism of him arose, he cannot be considered without blame for the incidents of which he complains.

Order affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion.

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

MONTGOMERY, Judge:

This is an appeal by the defendant, Grandon H. Carmack, from an order of support in the amount of $20.00 per week, plus a $20.00 service charge made in favor of his wife, Judith Carmack. Appellant contends he had cause for a divorce on the grounds of adultery and indignities and, therefore, his obligation to support his wife had ended.

The parties were married in 1968 and separated July 10, 1977 when the defendant left his wife and the marital home. He refused to return, although requested to do so by his wife.

[200]*200ADULTERY

Following the separation, the wife developed a relationship with a Harry W. Moeller, permitted him to spend a night in her apartment, and had sexual relations with him on two occasions. Recognizing that neither the defenses of condonation nor connivance, nor the degree of emotional disturbance suffered by the wife could successfully be asserted by the wife, the lower court proceeded to consider the question whether the conduct of the defendant justified the entry of an order which would otherwise be denied because of the wife’s conduct. This conduct consisted of his association with a Mrs. Rita Johnson for two years prior to the separation, and thereafter, of such a nature that adultery on his part could reasonably be inferred from the facts and circumstances and it was so found by the lower court. Thus, the question arises whether the wife’s adultery bars her from any support regardless of his conduct. Relying on Hellman v. Hellman, 246 Pa.Super. 536, 371 A.2d 964 (1977), the lower court held that the husband’s conduct was relevant and should be considered in determining a wife’s right to support in order to avoid inequities. We must agree that the holding in Heilman is that a wife’s right to support is not automatically terminated upon proof of her adultery, and that the conduct of the husband must be considered in determining that issue under the circumstances.

On appeal, an order of support will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In the present case, we are not prepared to say such abuse is present in light of the evidence showing the adulterous relationship the respondent maintained with Mrs. Johnson for two years prior to the separation and continuing thereafter, his abandonment of the marital home, his refusal of the wife’s attempts at reconciliation, and the circumstances under which her two indiscretions occurred.

INDIGNITIES

We find no merit in appellant’s argument that he has suffered indignities to his person to such an extent that he [201]*201would be entitled to a divorce on this ground as well. Since his conduct with Mrs. Johnson created the suspicion from which much of his wife’s criticism of him arose, he cannot be considered without blame for the incidents of which he complains.

Order affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 A.2d 1314, 268 Pa. Super. 198, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-carmack-v-carmack-pasuperct-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack