FREY V. FREY 821 A.2d 632 (2003) CASE BRIEF

FREY V. FREY

821 A.2d 632 (2003)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Cheryl Frey (W) challenged an order granting James Frey's (H) petition for bifurcation of his claim for divorce from the parties' economic claims.

FACTS: H filed a complaint in divorce alleging that the parties separated on March 1, 1999, and the marriage was irretrievably broken. On September 12, 1999, W filed an answer to the complaint with counterclaims for, inter alia, equitable distribution, alimony pendente lite, spousal support, alimony, and child support for the parties' minor daughter. On August 10, 2001, H filed a petition for bifurcation seeking to separate the parties' divorce from the economic claims. H also filed a petition requesting equitable distribution. W filed a counter-affidavit opposing the entry of a divorce decree on the grounds that the parties had not lived separate and apart for at least two years and the marriage was not irretrievably broken. H testified that he W were living in the same residence with their daughter. H occasionally ate meals with W and his daughter, but he and W had not slept together in the same bed since March 23, 1998. H and W had sexual intercourse a few times, however, after he filed for divorce, he and W had no sexual contact whatsoever. H was still physically present in the marital residence. H testified that he and W have attempted to reconcile, but the discussions have always turned into arguments. H usually ate at his mother's house, but on occasion he would eat with his daughter at the marital residence. Following the filing of the divorce complaint, H, w, and their daughter went on vacations to Walt Disney World and Myrtle Beach. but they did not sleep together while on vacation, and the sole purpose for the trips was to benefit their daughter. W testified that she believes the parties separated in October 2001 because that is when she and H first met with attorneys and W came to realize that the parties would not reconcile. W testified that from 1999 to 2001 they had sexual intercourse on a regular basis, and the last time they had sexual intercourse. W admitted that, she entered H's office without permission to obtain financial information, and accused H of having illicit affairs, which H denied. The court held that the parties separated on August 6, 1999, and the marriage was irretrievably broken. W eventually appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner