LAW

                Parties

Appellant: Carmencita J. Norviel

Respondent: Vernon A. Norviel

                Procedural History

    The husband filed a petition, identifying June 21st as their separation date while the wife responded by stating that the date for separation was on 15th of August. They later agreed to set the date of their separation as 21st of June but the wife set aside that stipulation. They later decided to resolve the issue of date of separation first (1156). The case was tried on 30th of March 2000 where the court decided to take the matter under submission. The court later extended the time for objections. Later the wife filed an objection and later the court granted the wife’s motion for review of the court’s order (1157).

                Facts

                The parties got married in the year 1983 and they were able to bore two children, a girl, and a boy. Their marriage faced some difficulties and they used to repeatedly discuss on divorce issue over the years. Both parties were always busy working for long hours and also used to travel a lot. It is after the birth of their firstborn child, a girl where the wife shifted from sleeping with husband and used to sleep with her daughter. Having family dinners become a problem and they were left with Sunday night where they were to have dinner. It is during one of the Sunday night dinners in 1998 that the husband declared of his decision to separate. Though they exchanged angry words, they still decided that the husband should move into a rental house where they were to buy. He took a while to move out as he waited for the house to be furnished but in that time he still maintained the civic relationship with his wife just for the sake of their children. They used to deposit their checks into the joint account and used the finance from the joint account for the expenses up until when they decided to separate in 1998.

                Issue

                Did the trial court fairly determine the separation date? (1158)

                Holding

                Yes. The court at least listened to all the evidence that were presented and thus their ruling was fair.

                Rule of law

                According to family code section 771, the law states that,” the earnings and the accumulation while living separate and apart from the other spouses” (1158).

 

 

                Reasoning

                Though both of the spouses agree that the husband communicated that their marriage had come to an end, there was no evidence of separation since they were still living together though as roommates. This, therefore, results in the absence of the separation date since the time of the intent and the actual separation did not occur at the same time (1159). Though the husband communicated earlier but his actions to fail to move out and also to take the family for a vacation, to invite the wife for his business trip and even remembering their anniversary showed that he did not mean on the marriage dissolution (1160). However we can conclude that his actions were for the well-being of the children and not the wife and that’s why he did all what he did.

                Judgment

                Considering all the evidence presented the court made a ruling declaring that the date of separation was on 28th of June 1998 and the case was closed (1170).