Richardson v. Richardson
1966 N.C. LEXIS 1249, 268 N.C. 538, 151 S.E.2d 12 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Civil abandonment, which constitutes grounds for divorce from bed and board and thus alimony, is the cessation of cohabitation without justification, consent, or intent to return. A husband's continued financial support for his wife does not, by itself, negate a claim of civil abandonment.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant were a married couple with a son named Steve.
- On March 27, 1965, Defendant announced his intention to leave the marital home and to stay away permanently.
- Plaintiff pleaded with Defendant to reconsider for the sake of the family, but he refused and left anyway.
- Defendant's departure was not caused by any provocation from Plaintiff.
- After leaving the home, Defendant continued to provide some financial subsistence for Plaintiff and their son.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff (wife) filed an action against Defendant (husband) in a trial court seeking alimony without divorce.
- The case proceeded to trial on the merits.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved for an involuntary nonsuit, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient to support the plaintiff's claim.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit, resulting in a dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment of nonsuit to the state's highest 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 husband's continued provision of financial support for his wife and child preclude a finding of civil abandonment under G.S. 50-7(1) when he has separated from the family home without justification, consent, or the intent to return?
Opinions:
Majority - Bobbitt, J.
No. A husband's continued financial support does not, as a matter of law, negate a claim of civil abandonment. The court distinguished civil abandonment for divorce/alimony purposes (G.S. 50-7(1)) from the criminal offense of abandonment (G.S. 14-322), which requires a willful failure to provide support. Citing Pruett v. Pruett, the court reasoned that a wife is entitled not only to financial support but also to her husband's society and cohabitation. The permanent denial of these rights constitutes the 'matrimonial offense of desertion' if cohabitation is ended without justification, without consent, and without the intention of renewing it. Therefore, the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a finding of abandonment, making the trial court's dismissal (nonsuit) improper.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between the financial and non-financial obligations of marriage, establishing that the duty of spousal support is not purely economic. By differentiating civil abandonment from criminal abandonment, the court affirmed that the right to cohabitation and society is a legally protected marital interest. The ruling prevents a spouse from unilaterally withdrawing from the marital relationship while avoiding legal consequences, such as alimony, merely by continuing to make financial payments. This reinforces the idea that abandonment is an act against the marital union itself, not just against the other spouse's finances.
