Steinhebel v. Steinhebel

Michigan Court of Appeals

Steinhebel v. Steinhebel

175 N.W.2d 37, 21 Mich. App. 139, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2053

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1970

DocketDocket No. 6,196

StatusPublished

This text of 175 N.W.2d 37 (Steinhebel v. Steinhebel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steinhebel v. Steinhebel, 175 N.W.2d 37, 21 Mich. App. 139, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2053 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal disputes a judgment of absolute divorce, granted to plaintiff by the circuit court on the grounds of extreme and repeated cruelty.

The court found that plaintiff had met the required proof for a judgment of divorce. Defendant contends that statutory grounds for divorce were not established, since there were only unruly tempers, human weaknesses, and minor misconduct involved, which amounted to incompatibility, and which did not entirely subvert the family relations.

Clearly, incompatibility is not a statutory ground for divorce. Niskanen v. Niskanen (1963), 371 Mich [140]*1401. However, the record contains ample factual support, clearly more than that asserted by defendant, for a finding of extreme and repeated cruelty on the part of the defendant, as pleaded by plaintiff. We are not convinced that we must-have reached a different conclusion had we occupied the position of the lower court under like circumstances. Reeves v. Reeves (1952), 335 Mich 193; Butgereit v. Butgereit (1967), 8 Mich App 246.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal disputes a judgment of absolute divorce, granted to plaintiff by the circuit court on the grounds of extreme and repeated cruelty.

The court found that plaintiff had met the required proof for a judgment of divorce. Defendant contends that statutory grounds for divorce were not established, since there were only unruly tempers, human weaknesses, and minor misconduct involved, which amounted to incompatibility, and which did not entirely subvert the family relations.

Clearly, incompatibility is not a statutory ground for divorce. Niskanen v. Niskanen (1963), 371 Mich [140]*1401. However, the record contains ample factual support, clearly more than that asserted by defendant, for a finding of extreme and repeated cruelty on the part of the defendant, as pleaded by plaintiff. We are not convinced that we must-have reached a different conclusion had we occupied the position of the lower court under like circumstances. Reeves v. Reeves (1952), 335 Mich 193; Butgereit v. Butgereit (1967), 8 Mich App 246.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 N.W.2d 37, 21 Mich. App. 139, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinhebel-v-steinhebel-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack