Frey v. Frey
821 A.2d 623, 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 531, 2003 Pa. Super. 135 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of a no-fault divorce, parties may be considered to be living 'separate and apart' even while residing in the same home, provided there has been a complete cessation of cohabitation, which is defined as the end of the mutual assumption of marital rights and duties. Occasional joint activities for the benefit of a child or isolated attempts at reconciliation do not preclude a finding of separation.
Facts:
- The parties, Husband and Wife, were married in 1993 and had one daughter.
- Husband testified that he and Wife stopped sleeping in the same bed after an argument on March 23, 1998.
- Husband testified that after he filed a complaint for divorce on August 6, 1999, he and Wife had no sexual contact, though they had a few times between March 1998 and August 1999.
- After August 6, 1999, while still living in the marital home, Husband largely ate his meals elsewhere, had his mother launder his shirts, and used the home primarily for sleeping.
- For the benefit of their daughter, the couple took vacations to Walt Disney World and Myrtle Beach, during which Husband informed Wife the trips were only for their daughter and they did not sleep together.
- The couple also attended a company Christmas party, hosted a New Year's Eve party, attended concerts, and saw a marriage counselor on two occasions after the divorce complaint was filed.
- Husband remained in the marital residence because he had built the house, his business was located next door, and his daughter lived there.
- Wife testified that she believed the separation occurred in October 2001, and claimed that she and Husband had regular sexual intercourse until that time.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 6, 1999, Husband filed a complaint in divorce in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court).
- On September 12, 1999, Wife filed an answer and counterclaims.
- Husband filed a petition for bifurcation to separate the divorce from economic claims, which the trial court granted.
- Wife filed a counter-affidavit arguing the parties had not lived 'separate and apart' for the required two-year period.
- The trial court held a hearing on the date of separation.
- On January 22, 2002, the trial court issued an order finding the date of separation to be August 6, 1999.
- Wife filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
- On May 10, 2002, the trial court issued a final decree in divorce.
- Wife (Appellant) appealed the final decree to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
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 couple live 'separate and apart' sufficient to meet the statutory requirement for a no-fault divorce when they continue to reside in the same home, take family vacations, attend social events together, and have occasional sexual relations, if one party has manifested a clear intent to end the marriage and the joint activities are primarily for the benefit of their child?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevens, J.
No. A couple can live 'separate and apart' while residing under the same roof if they have ceased cohabitation, which means ending the mutual assumption of rights and duties attendant to the marital relationship. The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the parties were separated as of August 6, 1999, because they were leading separate lives. The court reasoned that 'separate and apart' signifies the existence of 'separate lives, not separate roofs.' Although the parties took vacations and attended events together, the trial court was entitled to credit Husband's testimony that these activities were performed solely for their daughter's benefit. Furthermore, the court cited precedent holding that isolated attempts at reconciliation, like seeing a marriage counselor, and even occasional sexual relations do not automatically toll the statutory separation period or restart the marital relationship. The court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings, which resolved the conflicting testimony in Husband's favor.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that separation is a functional state rather than a purely physical one. It provides clarity that parties can be legally separated for divorce purposes even while sharing a residence, which is significant for couples who cannot afford separate housing or who choose to cohabitate for the sake of their children. The decision protects a party's ability to maintain a civil, cooperative parenting relationship, including joint family activities, without jeopardizing their legal status as 'separated.' This precedent instructs lower courts to look beyond surface-level facts like shared vacations to the underlying intent and nature of the parties' day-to-day relationship to determine if a true marital breakdown has occurred.
Unlock the full brief for Frey v. Frey