Rankin v. Rankin
124 A.2d 639, 181 Pa. Super. 414, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 502 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff seeking a divorce on the ground of indignities must prove that they are the innocent and injured spouse. A claim of constructive desertion requires proof that the plaintiff was willfully put out of the marital home by force or justifiable fear and did not subsequently consent to the separation.
Facts:
- Michael J. Rankin and Edith L. Rankin were married in 1942.
- At Michael's request, Edith, a registered nurse, attended business school to assist him with his coal stripping business because he could not read or write.
- Edith served as the bookkeeper for the business, which became a successful corporation in which both parties held substantial shares.
- The couple's marriage became disharmonious, with allegations of misconduct from both sides.
- Edith alleged that Michael physically abused her, including an incident where he stepped on her back, causing a herniated disc that required surgery, which was corroborated by her physician and another witness.
- Michael alleged that Edith called him names, threatened him, and once attempted to run him down with a car.
- Following an argument in October 1951, Michael left the marital home and never returned to live there.
- Michael later wrote a letter to Edith stating he had nothing to talk about and that it would cost him money 'to get rid of' her.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael J. Rankin filed an action for divorce against Edith L. Rankin in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- The complaint alleged cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities, and was later amended to add a charge of desertion.
- The trial court appointed a master to review the evidence.
- The master filed a report recommending that a divorce decree be granted on all three grounds.
- The trial court dismissed Edith L. Rankin's exceptions to the master's report and entered a final decree of divorce.
- Edith L. Rankin (appellant) appealed the decree to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, with Michael J. Rankin as the appellee.
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 spouse qualify for a divorce on the grounds of indignities or constructive desertion when the evidence indicates he was not an innocent and injured party and subsequently consented to the separation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, J.
No. A spouse does not qualify for a divorce on the grounds of indignities or constructive desertion when he is not an innocent and injured party and consented to the separation. The court conducted a de novo review of the evidence and found the master's credibility assessments, which uniformly favored Michael, to be unsupported by the record. On the charge of cruel and barbarous treatment, Michael's single, uncorroborated, and improbable story about Edith trying to run him down with a car was insufficient. Regarding indignities, the court found substantial evidence of Michael's own misconduct, including physical abuse corroborated by a physician and minister. Under the 'innocent and injured spouse' doctrine, if both parties are equally at fault, or if the plaintiff is the principal offender, a divorce for indignities cannot be granted. Finally, the claim of constructive desertion failed because there was no evidence that Michael was forced from the home by justifiable fear or that Edith's family acted at her direction. More importantly, his failure to return and his subsequent letter demonstrated his consent to the separation, which negates a claim of desertion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical importance of the 'innocent and injured spouse' doctrine in Pennsylvania divorce law, clarifying that a plaintiff must be substantially free from fault to obtain a divorce on the grounds of indignities. It also demonstrates the power and duty of an appellate court to conduct a thorough de novo review of the factual record, especially when a master's or lower court's findings on witness credibility appear biased or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The ruling on constructive desertion underscores that the plaintiff's own consent to a separation is a fatal flaw to such a claim, as it transforms the desertion into a mutual agreement to live apart.
