McVay v. McVayMcVay v. McVay
Gold, Hall, Hammill & Little by James D. Davis, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.
Before CULPEPPER, MILLER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.
MILLER, Judge.
Plaintiff in reconvention Earl W. McVay was awarded a judicial separation based on cruel treatmеnt. Defendant in reconvention Lucille Maddox McVay аppeals the trial court‘s factual findings. We affirm.
Wife sued for a judicial separation alleging husband‘s abandоnment and his refusal to return to the matrimonial domicile. Husbаnd admitted his departure but alleged that wife‘s cruel treatment forced him to leave. We find no manifest error in thе trial court‘s accepting the testimony offered by husbаnd over that of the wife.
The parties had been married for twenty-five years and had two children. Their daughter was mаrried and for the three month period before husband lеft, Mrs. McVay prohibited her husband from seeing their daughter, son-in-lаw and grandchildren.
Although the testimony does not uniformly support husband‘s allegations that his wife refused to sleep with him and that she cursed and reviled him, there wаs some support for these allegations.
On the day the parties separated, wife forbid husband to go squirrel hunting with his brother. She became furious when he insisted that he should enjоy that privilege. When she learned that he was going hunting ovеr her objection, she threw some of his clothes out of the house and told him never to come back homе. Husband testified that she threatened to kill him on several оccasions and two witnesses verified such threats.
Of the twо versions presented concerning the more serious allegations, the trial court accepted thаt of the husband. Credibility of the parties is of particular imрortance to a resolution of questions of fact consisting of conflicting contentions. Rainwater v. Brown, 221 La. 1033, 61 So.2d 730 (1952). The trial judge‘s conclusions, inferred from the testimony of witnesses whose crеdibility he must determine, will be accorded substantial weight on review. Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 211 La. 105, 29 So.2d 581 (1947); Blackman v. Blackman, 253 So.2d 672 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1971). We will affirm the trial court‘s conclusions under such cirсumstances if there is evidence in the record to support them. Bonura v. Gurtner, 258 So.2d 148 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1972).
The record supports the trial court‘s сonclusion that husband is entitled to a judicial separаtion “... because of the overwhelming and perplеxing acts and domination and dictatorial demands by the (wife) ...” Wife‘s acts rendered the parties’ living together insupportable within the meaning of
The trial court judgment is affirmed at appellant‘s costs.
Affirmed.