Opinion
No. 7173.
April 3, 1953.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, TANEY COUNTY.
H. F. Owen, Jr., Branson, for appellant.
Gideon Mahnkey, Forsyth, for respondent.
Action for divorce. Answer and cross-bill filed. Upon a trial, defendant was granted a divorce upon her cross-bill and plaintiff's petition dismissed. Alimony in gross in the sum of $6,980 allowed defendant with custody of a minor female child, sixteen years of age. Plaintiff has appealed.
The petition alleges the marriage as of March 25, 1933, the separation as of February 11, 1952. That two children, James Ray Coggburn, age 18, and June Katherine, age 15, were born of the marriage, custody of whom plaintiff asks. Plaintiff seeks divorce on the ground of indignities, which consisted of defendant having an ungovernable temper, constantly nagging about wanting to work out away from the home, that she was never satisfied with life on the farm; that she cursed and demeaned plaintiff's parents and falsely accused him of running to them with his troubles and with them interfering in the private life of plaintiff and defendant. That defendant had on numerous occasions left the plaintiff without any knowledge on the part of plaintiff of her intention to leave or where she was going and that he had always prevailed upon her to return; that she had told him many times she was going to leave him and never live with him again and that she wanted to see him left alone in the world when she took the children away with her. That she told him she wanted a divorce and would not live with him any more; that on February 11, 1952, while plaintiff was away at work, she again left plaintiff, taking with her $5,400 in cash, that he had saved, and some of the household goods and furnishings, which compelled him to borrow money to carry on his business; that she placed the money in a bank on time deposit. He asked for a divorce, that care and custody of the children be awarded him and that she be required to return the money to him.
The answer admitted the marriage and separation and denied all else. It further alleged that plaintiff was a miser, that he hid his money out on the farm to keep from paying taxes, "where he could handle it and love it" and that she, by accident, discovered the sum of $5,400 hidden in the barn; that to safeguard the money from being lost or stolen, she took it to the bank and deposited it, where it would be safe and protected. She admitted the names and ages of the children born of the marriage. In her cross-bill she asked that a divorce be granted her because of certain indignities which consisted of (2) knocking her down with his fists on several occasions and pulling her hair, (b) refusing to buy a radio, and when she bought one, wouldn't let her and the children listen to programs he didn't like and would scream and shout to keep them from hearing it, (c) being so stingy he would not wire the house for electricity, (d) would not have a telephone installed in the house and would not pay for one she had installed and (e) with having a violent temper and being mean, abusive and grouchy and not speaking to her for days.
She alleges that before their first child was born, plaintiff took her to a doctor to have an abortion performed. That he would never take her to a picture show but insisted on her going to Allendale "where he could wine, dance and spend his money there." That he well knew she did not want to go to Allendale on account of the bad reputation of the place.
Plaintiff's evidence showed that he and defendant were married on the 25th of March, 1933, and lived together most of the time until the 11th day of February, 1952. That during this time defendant was continually wanting to get a job and work elsewhere than at her home. That on the 11th day of February, he had gone to his father's to work on a fence and did work there all day; that when he returned home, he found the defendant had left him, had taken part of the household goods and all of his $5,400 that he had in a glass jar hidden in a barrel of feed at the barn; that this was not the first time she had left him. At one time she had gone to California, another time to Michigan and the third time to Springfield. On each of these occasions, he had prevailed upon her to return. He had saved $5,400 which he began saving in 1942. He was saving it to build a house and provide another and better place for him and his family. They lived on 80 acres of land in a log house about seven or eight miles from Branson, for which he had paid $210 at a tax sale, before they were married. He and his wife had looked at several pieces of land with the intention of buying and building a house thereon with the money he had saved but she was never satisfied with any location. At the time of the marriage, he told her he knew nothing about making a living except by farming and they would live on a farm, to which she agreed.
After his wife had taken the money, moved to town and secured a position working in Skaggs Hospital, their son told plaintiff he could get part of the money back. The boy did go and talk to his mother and got $400 which was returned to plaintiff. In the meantime, plaintiff had some stock that had to be fed and he had no money to buy enough feed, so he was compelled to borrow $1,400 at the bank and pay 6% or 8% interest in order to finish feeding the stock.
He further testified that he had a pick-up truck that he had purchased in 1950, for $1,489.52, but no value was proven as of the time of the trial. It was paid for from February, 1950 to April 1952. Neither was any value placed upon the farm except that he had given $210 for it at a tax sale before they were married, but most of it was rough land, with probably 15 or 20 acres in cultivation, and about 15 acres thereof very rough. The log house on it was of very little value. Since 1945, with his farming, he had spent some of his time working as a carpenter, he had learned the carpenter trade and could do the work himself in building a house. He had $3,000 loaned out on interest and had an interest in some stock of the approximate value of $2,500. They had lived on the farm for more than 14 years in the log house and that his reason for not having it wired for electricity was, they were intending to get a new place and he did not want to go to any additional expense on the old house. In his opinion they did not need a telephone and for that reason did not have one installed; that they had had two radios, one given to them but which was too expensive to keep up because of the cost of charging the battery, and the second one his wife had purchased. About two or three months before she left him, he had told his daughter about where his money was located, so if anything happened to him it would belong to his wife and children in equal shares. He admitted that he had lived economically so he could save money and buy a home for all of them. The reason he kept the money hidden in the barn was his fear that if he put it in the bank in their joint names, that some day when she got angry, she would leave and take the money with her.
He admitted slapping his wife at one time when she called him a dirty S. O. B. He had the log house wired for electricity after his wife left with the $5,400 and hopes for a new home were gone. Since the separation, the children had been staying with him most of the time. The boy is now 19 years and the girl 17 years of age.
To sustain her allegation, the defendant testified that their son was 18 years of age and a Senior in high school, the girl was 16 years of age and a Sophomore. Defendant was working at Skaggs Hospital at $110 per month. She said before the first child was born, which would have been more than 18 years ago, her husband tried to get her to have an abortion performed and had taken her to a doctor's office. However, the abortion was not performed. She admitted taking the $5,400 that her husband had hidden in the barn. In explaining why she did it, she stated:
"A. I took the money and put it in the bank in mine and the children's name, so that if anything happened to me, the children wouldn't have to go through Court to get it, it would go to them."
It was still in the bank. She further stated that over 18 years ago, just before her boy was born, that her husband struck her and knocked her clear across the kitchen. This happened at his father's house. She claimed the reason he did this was, he was mad at the cows. She stated that every time she had left home, he had run her away. He would not put in a telephone, while two neighbors living a short distance from their house had phones. She raised chickens and hogs and bought her clothes, or some of them and furnishings for the house. Her main objection to him was she thought he was stingy. At one time when she had some hogs to sell, plaintiff charged her $13.55 for hauling them to market. Before taking the money, which by some means she had discovered hidden in the barn, she went to a lawyer for advice and was told she could take it. She admitted at one time they had had an old radio, which was too expensive to keep up and she had bought a new one, to which they all listened. She further testified that since the separation, he had wired his house. It was admitted in open court by each of the parties that the other one's reputation was good for morality, uprightness and honesty. Plaintiff and defendant were the only witnesses.
At the time of the trial, defendant was thirty-seven years of age and plaintiff forty-five. Defendant testified that a few days before she left the last time, plaintiff tried to run her away and had caused her to leave. When she would be listening to a radio program that plaintiff didn't like, he would purposely make so much noise, she couldn't hear it. She stated he was quarrelsome and stingy and wouldn't speak to her for days at a time.
A divorce case is heard de novo in this court and it is our duty to examine the whole record and reach our own conclusions giving due deference to the decision of the trial court, which had the opportunity of observing and hearing the witnesses as they testified. Fossett v. Fossett, Mo.App., 243 S.W.2d 625. While this is a statutory action, equitable principles are applied and this court may render such judgment as we think the evidence warrants. Galst v. Galst, Mo.App., 188 S.W.2d 843, and cases cited; Fite v. Fite, Mo.App., 196 S.W.2d 65. We have in this case a plaintiff and defendant, who are hard workers and admittedly industrious, upright and moral, strong willed — both of them. For more than nineteen years they have lived together, worked, saved and quarreled. One thing is glaringly apparent from the record. There is no possible chance for them to live together in happiness as a man and wife should. Plaintiff sincerely believed in the Scotch proverb, "From saving cometh having". Defendant was inclined to a more modern philosophy. From a consideration of all the testimony, we are inclined to defer to the judgment of the trial court in holding that the defendant was entitled to a divorce, although many of the incidents complained of happened long ago and were condoned.
However, we cannot agree with the trial court in its award of alimony in gross. In determining the amount of alimony that should be allowed a wife, the court should consider the wife's conduct as bearing on marital difficulties, her health, age, needs, obligations and dependents, her income and earnings as well as her capacity to earn, her contributions to the joint estate and the rights she may have acquired in her husband's real estate by virtue of the marital relationship. Stokes v. Stokes, Mo.App., 222 S.W.2d 108. The wife is thirty-seven, the husband forty-five. As far as the record shows, they are both in good health. However, since the separation, the children have been staying most of the time with the plaintiff had he has not been working and enjoying an income. On the other hand, the defendant has a position at the salary of $110 per month. There is no evidence as to the present value of the farm, but it cost $210. From the scant description in the record, it could not have been of much value. Plaintiff had an interest in cattle of the approximate value of $2,500. What it is worth now is problematical. He had $3,000 loaned out, a secondhand pickup truck which three years ago cost him something over $1,500 and apparently he purchased it on payments. With the $5,000 in the bank, this is about all of their assets. The wife has an inchoate right of dower in the farm, which is of some value. See Stokes v. Stokes, supra. The plaintiff owes $1,400. As stated, the court allowed alimony in gross to the defendant in the sum of $6,980, ordered the $5,000 in the bank to be applied on payment of that sum and execution to issue for the sum of $1,980. Clearly this is too large an allowance under all the circumstances. We think the sum of $4,000 would be more equitable and just as an allowance for alimony and maintenance in gross.
We also think that the care and custody of the daughter should remain in the mother, yet the daughter should have full and ample opportunity to visit her father and her father to visit her. Of this matter, of course, the trial court retains jurisdiction until she becomes of age. The trial court made no order as to the care and custody of the son, neither shall we, because he is now about nineteen years of age, has graduated from high school, probably will soon be in the armed forces, and we can see no reason for making an order relative to his custody. However, the trial court also retains jurisdiction of this question and upon proper application, when and if necessary, can make such orders relative thereto as are needed.
The cause will be affirmed as to the granting of the divorce, reversed as to the amount of alimony in gross and defendant should be allowed $3,000 as alimony in gross, $1,000 for the maintenance of June Katherine Coggburn, both amounts to be paid out of the $5,000 in the bank and the remaining $1,000 to be returned to plaintiff. Each party should be allowed to obtain and retain any personal effects without interference by the other, and the trial court is directed to make such orders in the matter as are in conformity with the views herein expressed. It is so ordered.
BLAIR and McDOWELL, JJ., concur.