Wells v. Wells

198 A.2d 442, 41 N.J. 594, 1964 N.J. LEXIS 267
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 16, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 198 A.2d 442 (Wells v. Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wells v. Wells, 198 A.2d 442, 41 N.J. 594, 1964 N.J. LEXIS 267 (N.J. 1964).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Curiam.

We are generally in accord with the dissenting opinion of Judge Gaulkin, 79 N. J. Super. 388, 395 (App. Div. 1963).

The sole question presented is whether the trial court had the power to raise the issue of recrimination and whether under the facts of this case it should have raised that issue. Assuming that a court ordinarily has discretionary power to raise, sua sponte, a recriminatory bar to plaintiff’s cause of action for divorce, we agree that the judge should not have exercised that discretion under the factual complex here present.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is accordingly reversed and entry of judgment of divorce in favor of plaintiff is directed.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Peootoe, Hall, Schettino and Hane-MAN—7.

For affirmance—None.

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

Related

Quinn v. Quinn
288 A.2d 51 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1972)
C. v. C.
254 A.2d 778 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1969)
X. v. Y.
247 A.2d 28 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)
B. v. S.
240 A.2d 189 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.2d 442, 41 N.J. 594, 1964 N.J. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-wells-nj-1964.