recrimination doctrine in Indiana

1972As this Court recognized in O’Connor v. O’ Connor, supra, in reference to the doctrine of recrimination, “If the result can no longer be justified, the doctrine should be struck down regardless of its historical-legal basis.” 253 Ind. at 306, 253 N. E. 2d at 256 .

1971In 1970 (O’Connor v. O’Cormor, 253 Ind. 295 , 253 N. E. 2d 250 ), we reconsidered our prior position upon the well estab lished principle of domestic relations law, the doctrine of recrimination, “* * * In order to determine whether this Court can any longer sanction the use of that rule of law. . . .” 253 N. E. 2d at 255 .

1966Apropos to the case at bar, we quote approvingly from an opinion by the Supreme Court in the case of McMurrey v. McMurrey (1936), 210 Ind. 595, 597 , 4 N. E. 2d 540 , as follows: “It was the duty of the court to hear and weigh the evidence submitted upon both paragraphs of the complaint and the answers thereto.

1966Apropos to the case at bar, we quote approvingly from an opinion by the Supreme Court in the case of McMurrey v. McMurrey (1936), 210 Ind. 595, 597 , 4 N. E. 2d 540 , as follows: “It was the duty of the court to hear and weigh the evidence submitted upon both paragraphs of the complaint and the answers thereto.

1969In Hartleroad v. Hartleroad (1968), 142 Ind. App. 147 , 233 N. E. 2d 250, 252 , this court stated: “We will not weigh the evidence but will consider only that evidence most favorable to the appellee to determine whether or not the evidence and all reasonable inferences deductible therefrom support the finding that appellant was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward appellee.

1969In Hartleroad v. Hartleroad (1968), 142 Ind. App. 147 , 233 N. E. 2d 250, 252 , this court stated: “We will not weigh the evidence but will consider only that evidence most favorable to the appellee to determine whether or not the evidence and all reasonable inferences deductible therefrom support the finding that appellant was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward appellee.

1966The doctrine of recrimination has been stated by the case law of this state to be: “Where each of the married parties has committed a matrimonial offense, which is a cause for divorce, so that, when one asks for this remedy, the other is equally entitled to the same, whether the offenses are the same or not, the court can grant the prayer of neither.” Brown, Div. § 84, cited in Haverstock v. Haverstock (1965), 246 Ind. 426 , 206 N. E. 2d 368, 369 . *647 The trial court, in the case at bar, found for the appellee on his complaint and against the appellant on his cross-complaint; thus, finding t

1966The doctrine of recrimination has been stated by the case law of this state to be: “Where each of the married parties has committed a matrimonial offense, which is a cause for divorce, so that, when one asks for this remedy, the other is equally entitled to the same, whether the offenses are the same or not, the court can grant the prayer of neither.” Brown, Div. § 84, cited in Haverstock v. Haverstock (1965), 246 Ind. 426 , 206 N. E. 2d 368, 369 . *647 The trial court, in the case at bar, found for the appellee on his complaint and against the appellant on his cross-complaint; thus, finding t

1965This court, commenting with approval upon the subject in the case of Alexander v. Alexander (1894), 140 Ind. 555, 558, 559 , 38 N. E. 855 , quoted from several treatises as follows: “It is said in 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, section 564: ‘If the allegations on both sides are proved, the finding in each suit will, as recrimination, bar the other, and neither party can have a divorce.’ “So, in Stewart Marriage and Divorce, section 314, it is said: ‘ . . . if both parties have a right to a divorce, neither has.’ “In Browne Divorce, p. 84, a like statement is made: ‘Where each of

1965This court, commenting with approval upon the subject in the case of Alexander v. Alexander (1894), 140 Ind. 555, 558, 559 , 38 N. E. 855 , quoted from several treatises as follows: “It is said in 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, section 564: ‘If the allegations on both sides are proved, the finding in each suit will, as recrimination, bar the other, and neither party can have a divorce.’ “So, in Stewart Marriage and Divorce, section 314, it is said: ‘ . . . if both parties have a right to a divorce, neither has.’ “In Browne Divorce, p. 84, a like statement is made: ‘Where each of

1965This court, commenting with approval upon the subject in the case of Alexander v. Alexander (1894), 140 Ind. 555, 558, 559 , 38 N. E. 855 , quoted from several treatises as follows: “It is said in 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, section 564: ‘If the allegations on both sides are proved, the finding in each suit will, as recrimination, bar the other, and neither party can have a divorce.’ “So, in Stewart Marriage and Divorce, section 314, it is said: ‘ . . . if both parties have a right to a divorce, neither has.’ “In Browne Divorce, p. 84, a like statement is made: ‘Where each of

1965This court, commenting with approval upon the subject in the case of Alexander v. Alexander (1894), 140 Ind. 555, 558, 559 , 38 N. E. 855 , quoted from several treatises as follows: “It is said in 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, section 564: ‘If the allegations on both sides are proved, the finding in each suit will, as recrimination, bar the other, and neither party can have a divorce.’ “So, in Stewart Marriage and Divorce, section 314, it is said: ‘ . . . if both parties have a right to a divorce, neither has.’ “In Browne Divorce, p. 84, a like statement is made: ‘Where each of

1965This court, commenting with approval upon the subject in the case of Alexander v. Alexander (1894), 140 Ind. 555, 558, 559 , 38 N. E. 855 , quoted from several treatises as follows: “It is said in 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, section 564: ‘If the allegations on both sides are proved, the finding in each suit will, as recrimination, bar the other, and neither party can have a divorce.’ “So, in Stewart Marriage and Divorce, section 314, it is said: ‘ . . . if both parties have a right to a divorce, neither has.’ “In Browne Divorce, p. 84, a like statement is made: ‘Where each of