485 P.2d 663 | Utah | 1971
Appeal by plaintiff from a divorce decree awarded to defendant. Affirmed with costs to defendant.
Plaintiff says the trial court erred in 1) granting the divorce and 2) custody of the children to the mother. After reviewing the record in this case, we are of the opinion and hold that Sartain v. Sartain, 15 Utah 2d 198, 389 P.2d 1023 (1964), and the principles there enunciated are dis-positive here.
This case might be categorized as a comedy of terrors, in which, between September 26, 1969, and May 19, 1970, a period of less than eight months, Mr. M had filed his complaint, and thereafter on an average, almost weekly, filed some sort of disturbing paper, including one firing his counsel, (perhaps the least disturbed) four petitions for orders to show cause why Mrs. M was in default for some reason or another or why she should not be held in contempt for something or other, including an order to show cause why she should “not allow Rusty and Jimmy to play on the Little
The trial court in its decree wisely ordered the Conciliation Department of the Domestic Relations Court to carry out a post-hearing investigation and report back to the court not later than November 19, 1970. We assume this has been accomplished and that any further orders pertaining to custody, support money, etc. may be effected if deemed necessary, under the continuing jurisdiction of the court..
It appears that the trial court concluded that there were grounds for divorce on both sides when it pondered that “Unfortunately, our law does not allow me to say that both of them are entitled to a divorce, (and) if it were so I presume that is what I would say in this case.” When a divorce is granted to one, both of the spouses effectively are divorced. There seems to be nothing in our statute or in logic that would prevent a dissolution
. Secs. 30-3-1 and 30-3-2, Utah Code Annotated 1953.
