Kucera v. Kucera
1962 N.D. LEXIS 95, 117 N.W.2d 810 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the statutory doctrine of recrimination, a court must deny a divorce if both parties have proven valid statutory grounds for divorce against each other. Furthermore, a husband who marries a woman knowing she is pregnant by another man does not, by that act alone, assume a legal duty to support the child.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was pregnant by a man named Mr. K when she married Defendant.
- Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's pregnancy by another man before the marriage.
- The parties agreed before the marriage that they would marry to 'give the child a name' and could divorce in a year if it did not work out.
- A child, fathered by Mr. K, was born less than seven months after the marriage.
- The parties later had a second child together, named Robin.
- After Robin's birth, the parties ceased having sexual relations for over two years prior to the lawsuit.
- Defendant discovered Mr. K had been visiting Plaintiff in the marital home for a period of more than six months.
- On at least one occasion, Defendant struck the Plaintiff and also called her and the first child obscene names.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action for divorce against Defendant in a North Dakota trial court, alleging extreme mental cruelty.
- Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce on the grounds of adultery and extreme cruelty.
- The trial court granted a decree of divorce to the Plaintiff.
- The trial court ordered the Defendant to make monthly support payments for both children born during the marriage.
- Defendant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, demanding a trial de novo.
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 the doctrine of recrimination bar a court from granting a divorce when both spouses have proven statutory grounds for divorce against each other, and is a husband who marries a woman knowing she is pregnant with another man's child legally obligated to support that child?
Opinions:
Majority - Strutz, J.
Yes, the doctrine of recrimination bars the divorce, and no, the husband is not obligated to support the child. North Dakota's statute on recrimination is mandatory, requiring a court to deny a divorce when both parties have proven a cause of divorce against the other. Here, the Plaintiff proved extreme cruelty by the Defendant, and the Defendant proved extreme cruelty (Plaintiff's extended visits with Mr. K) and willful desertion (Plaintiff's persistent refusal of matrimonial intercourse for over two years) by the Plaintiff. Because both parties established grounds, a divorce must be denied. Regarding the first child, the court rejected the theory that the Defendant stands in loco parentis simply by marrying the Plaintiff with knowledge of her pregnancy. Adopting the reasoning from an Oregon case, the court held that a theory of adoption should be based on the child being wanted for its own sake, not as an incidental attachment to the mother. Given the parties' pre-marital agreement was only to 'give the child a name,' the Defendant did not assume a legal obligation for the child's support.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of the application of recrimination, a strict fault-based divorce doctrine that has since been largely abandoned in American law with the advent of no-fault divorce. The holding illustrates how mutual fault could legally compel a couple to remain in a failed marriage, a result modern law seeks to avoid. The decision also establishes a significant precedent in family law regarding parental obligations, clarifying that a husband's knowledge of a wife's pre-marital pregnancy by another does not automatically create a duty of support. This protects individuals who marry under such circumstances for reasons other than intending to assume full parental responsibility.
