Lexplug logoLexplug

Donaldson v. Donaldson

Idaho Supreme Court
1917 Ida. LEXIS 145, 31 Idaho 180, 170 P. 94 (1917)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Extreme cruelty in divorce actions is a relative term defined by the actual effect of conduct on the victim rather than the acts themselves; however, courts may only award attorney's fees to 'enable' a party to prosecute or defend an action, meaning such fees cannot be awarded in a final judgment for past services unless an application was already pending.


Facts:

  • Rosa B. Donaldson and the appellant were married.
  • Throughout the marriage, the husband treated Rosa in a cruel and inhuman manner.
  • The husband frequently cursed at Rosa, swore at her, and used vile and profane names.
  • The husband threatened Rosa with great bodily harm.
  • On February 1, 1915, a specific incident occurred where the husband cursed, swore, and applied vile epithets to Rosa.
  • Rosa was in ill health and indigent, relying on others for support.
  • The husband's conduct caused Rosa to undergo grievous mental suffering.

Procedural Posture:

  • Rosa Donaldson filed a lawsuit against her husband in the state trial court seeking a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty.
  • Rosa made a pre-trial application for temporary alimony and suit money, which the trial court granted.
  • The trial court conducted a trial and entered a judgment in favor of Rosa, granting the divorce.
  • The trial court awarded custody of the minor child to Rosa and ordered the husband to pay child support.
  • In the final judgment, the trial court ordered the husband to pay an additional $150 for Rosa's attorney fees.
  • The husband appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.

Locked

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 a trial court have the statutory authority to award attorney's fees to a wife in a final divorce decree for legal services already rendered, when no specific application for those fees was pending at the time of judgment?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rice

No, the trial court does not have the power to award attorney's fees for past services in a final judgment unless an application was previously pending. The court reasoned that the statutory right to allow attorney's fees is derived from the necessity to 'enable' the wife to prosecute or defend the action. This language implies looking to the future; once the case has been tried and judgment entered, the necessity to enable prosecution no longer exists. Since the wife had no pending application for fees when the judgment was entered, the award of $150 was for services already rendered and therefore unauthorized. Regarding the divorce itself, the court affirmed the decree, reasoning that extreme cruelty is a relative term and the trial judge's finding that the husband's specific acts caused grievous mental suffering was supported by the evidence.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chief Justice Budge

Yes, the trial court should be permitted to award attorney's fees in the final decree for services already rendered. While agreeing with the majority regarding the divorce and property division, the dissent argued that the wife's initial complaint, which requested a reasonable sum for counsel fees, constituted a sufficient 'pending application.' The dissent contended that the trial court has discretion to determine the total equitable amount of fees at the end of the case when all services have been performed, and that denying this hampers the court's ability to ensure justice.



Analysis:

This case creates a significant procedural distinction in family law regarding when and how attorney's fees can be awarded. By strictly interpreting the word 'enable' in the statute, the court established that fee awards are prospective (for future legal work) rather than retrospective (reimbursement for work done), unless a motion is specifically kept open. This prevents trial courts from awarding 'catch-up' fees at the end of a trial if the party hasn't effectively preserved that request. Additionally, the case reinforces the 'subjective' standard for extreme cruelty, acknowledging that behavior that might not harm one person could constitute grievous mental suffering for another, and that trial courts are best positioned to judge this impact.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Donaldson v. Donaldson (1917)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"