Schine v. Schine, 31 N.Y.2d 113 (1972)

Abandonment, as grounds for divorce, requires an unjustified refusal by one spouse to fulfill basic marital obligations without the other spouse’s consent, such as denying access to the marital home.

Summary

In a divorce action, the husband counterclaimed for divorce based on abandonment. The trial court granted the divorce to the husband, but the Appellate Division reversed, disagreeing with the finding of abandonment. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and determined whether the wife’s actions constituted abandonment. The Court of Appeals held that the wife’s actions, specifically changing the locks on the marital home and denying the husband a key, constituted abandonment because these actions were unjustified and without the husband’s consent. The court modified the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the trial court’s judgment divorcing the parties.

Facts

The Schines married in 1960 and had two children. Marital problems arose in 1963, leading to separations. In 1966, the wife lived in Kings Point, Long Island, while the husband stayed in New York City for business. After an argument in August 1966, the wife returned to Kings Point. The wife changed the lock on their Kings Point residence after a household employee lost the key but did not give the husband a new key. The husband found his key didn’t work on September 3rd, and the wife told him he no longer lived there.

Procedural History

The wife filed for separation; the husband counterclaimed for divorce based on abandonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s complaint and granted the husband’s counterclaim. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the husband’s counterclaim. The husband appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the wife’s changing the locks on the marital residence and denying the husband a key constituted abandonment, justifying a divorce in favor of the husband.

Holding

Yes, because the wife’s actions were an unjustified refusal to fulfill basic marital obligations, specifically denying the husband access to the marital home without his consent.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that abandonment requires a refusal by one spouse to fulfill basic marital obligations springing from the marriage contract, without justification and without the consent of the other spouse. Citing Mirizio v. Mirizio, 242 N.Y. 74, 81. The court noted that changing the lock on the marital home and excluding the husband, unless justified, constitutes abandonment. The Court found the wife’s changing the lock and denying the husband a key was an intentional act, demonstrating a disregard for the husband’s access to the home. The court emphasized the wife’s history of choosing to live apart from the husband and refusing to stay with him during crises. Despite the husband’s difficult behavior, the court determined the wife’s actions constituted unjustified abandonment. As the Court stated, “The essence of abandonment is a refusal by one spouse to fulfill ‘basic obligations springing from the marriage contract.’”. This case distinguishes itself because the act of changing the locks was a concrete, demonstrable act of exclusion that the court found to be a key factor in determining abandonment. The fact that the wife may have initially changed the lock for innocent reasons was not a defense when she consciously disregarded the husband’s access. The court emphasized the importance of consent, noting that the abandonment must be “unjustified and without the consent of the other spouse”.