Benscoter v. Benscoter

Pennsylvania Superior Court · Family Law

Family LawDivorceIndignities to the personInjured and innocent spousedivorce a.v.m.indignitiescourse of conductsporadic misconduct

Facts

The parties were married in 1946 and had four sons. The husband claimed the wife committed indignities by expressing disappointment that she had not borne a daughter, verbally abusing him, and blaming him for that failure, but his complaints did not arise until August 1961 after about 15 years of marriage. By that time the wife was suffering from multiple sclerosis, which caused serious physical impairment and emotional frustration, including suicide attempts. The record also showed circumstances giving the wife grounds to suspect the husband's interest in another woman, including his possession of prophylactics, accompanying the woman while trapping wild game, and going swimming with her.

Issue

Whether the husband proved a legal cause for divorce a.v.m. on the ground of indignities to the person. More specifically, did the wife's conduct amount to the required course of indignities, and did the husband clearly establish that he was the injured and innocent spouse?

Rule

On appeal in a divorce case heard before a master, the appellate court must independently review the evidence to determine whether a legal cause for divorce has been established. Indignities must consist of a course of conduct rather than sporadic acts, and conduct attributable to a spouse's ill health does not furnish grounds for divorce because ill health may explain and excuse the behavior. In addition, the plaintiff must clearly and indubitably prove that he is the injured and innocent spouse.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Erie, Pennsylvania, Daniel Mercer filed for divorce on the ground of indignities after his wife, Leah Mercer, insulted him during three arguments over an 18-month period, calling him useless and blaming him for family finances. The couple otherwise continued living together and socializing as usual.

Under the governing rule, is Daniel most likely entitled to a divorce on the ground of indignities?

Explanation. Indignities require a continuing course of conduct, not merely sporadic acts. Here, three arguments over 18 months, with otherwise normal cohabitation, are more like isolated incidents than the sustained pattern needed to establish a legal cause for divorce. (Derived from Benscoter v. Benscoter (n.d.).)