Schneider v. Schneider

3 Citing cases

  1. Ganzer v. Ganzer

    249 N.E.2d 660 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969)   Cited 7 times

    However, it has long been held that where the misconduct of the wife has been so gross, as when she has been guilty of moral delinquency such as adultery, it would be an abuse of discretion to award her permanent alimony. See Spitler v. Spitler, 108 Ill. 120; Schneider v. Schneider, 286 Ill. App. 575, 4 N.E.2d 123. [3] Plaintiff's whole course of conduct after the commencement of this action dictates that she is not entitled to permanent alimony. It cannot be denied that she was guilty of open and notorious adultery and yet the record fails to disclose the slightest hint of remorse or sorrow on her part. Her determination to continue her relationship with King is evidenced by her flat refusal when she was asked by defendant's counsel if she was willing to give up her late hours in an effort to effect a reconciliation.

  2. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner

    148 N.E.2d 327 (Ill. App. Ct. 1958)   Cited 6 times
    In Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 16 Ill. App.2d 286, 294a, 148 N.E.2d 327, a separate maintenance action where the parties were living together was held not to be filed in good faith and attorneys' fees were disallowed. Plaintiff urges that in good conscience and equity a father should not be required to pay his former wife's fees in seeking the enforcement of his right to visitation, nor is it necessary for the wife to retain counsel for her defense.

    Being the active party, defendant was guilty of wilful desertion. Schneider v. Schneider, 286 Ill. App. 575; Mathews v. Mathews, 227 Ill. App. 465."

  3. Snavely v. Snavely

    110 N.E.2d 685 (Ill. App. Ct. 1953)   Cited 3 times
    In Snavely v. Snavely, 349 Ill. App. 369, 110 N.E.2d 685, the court in discussing whether statutory notice as required by the statute was served upon the appellant before he was committed to a state hospital for the insane, cited Eddy v. People, 15 Ill. 386, where the rule was laid down that notice in such cases is indispensable even where the statute made no provision for it.

    Being the active party defendant was guilty of willful desertion. Schneider v. Schneider, 286 Ill. App. 575; Mathews v. Mathews, 227 Ill. App. 465. [6-8] The evidence shows that the parties lived separate and apart for more than a year before the complaint was filed.