Desrochers v. Desrochers
347 A.2d 150, 115 N.H. 591, 1975 N.H. LEXIS 369 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a no-fault divorce statute, an irremediable breakdown of the marriage can be established based on one spouse's subjective and persistent belief that the marriage is over, even if the other spouse wishes to reconcile.
Facts:
- The parties married in September 1970.
- When the wife was pregnant, the husband stated that he wanted a boy and would want to put the child up for adoption if it was a girl.
- Their daughter was born in January 1973, after which the husband became very attached to her.
- The parties separated in May 1973.
- The wife asserted that she no longer loved her husband.
- The husband claimed that he loved his wife and did not want a divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife brought a libel for divorce against the husband in September 1973 in the Hillsborough County Superior Court.
- In October 1973, the court approved a temporary agreement between the parties regarding custody, visitation, and support.
- The Superior Court held a hearing in July 1974 and made several findings of fact.
- After the hearing, the Superior Court transferred the legal question of whether a divorce could be granted on its findings to the New Hampshire Supreme Court without issuing a ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does one spouse's desire to continue the marriage and claim that reconciliation is possible prevent a court from finding that irreconcilable differences have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage under RSA 458:7-a?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenison, C.J.
No. One spouse's desire to continue a marriage does not act as a bar to divorce if the other spouse resolutely refuses to continue the marital relationship. The existence of irreconcilable differences that cause an irremediable breakdown is determined by the subjective state of mind of the parties. While one spouse's desire for reconciliation is evidence against a finding of irremediable breakdown, it is not determinative. If one spouse's refusal to continue the marriage is firm, and it is clear from the passage of time or other circumstances that there is no reasonable possibility of a change of heart, an irremediable breakdown exists. In this case, the parties' separation for two and a half years and the wife's persistence in seeking a divorce provide sufficient evidence for a trial court to find that the marriage has irremediably broken down.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'irremediable breakdown' standard in New Hampshire's no-fault divorce law, establishing that the standard is primarily subjective. It prevents one spouse from unilaterally vetoing a divorce by merely professing a desire to reconcile when the other spouse has demonstrated a settled determination to end the marriage. This ruling solidifies the principle that if one party genuinely and persistently believes the marriage is over, the court can legally recognize that reality, shifting the focus from marital fault to the viability of the relationship itself.
