IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WINEGARD 257 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1977) CASE BRIEF

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WINEGARD

257 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1977)

NATURE OF THE CASE: H appealed an order which awarded W, his ex-wife temporary attorney fees in a dissolution proceeding involving a common-law marriage.

FACTS: John and Sally, 53 and 30 years of age respectively at time of trial, first met in 1962, shortly after Sally commenced working in the office of John's Burlington business enterprise. At the time, Sally was single and John was married and the father of two children. At some time in 1964 or 1965 John's first marriage was dissolved. In May of 1963 John and Sally commenced an erratic relationship which ultimately led to the present controversy. Sally married one Lonnie Anderkin and moved to Ohio. This union produced a child, Wendy Lynn, who was born in September of 1964. Sally returned to Burlington and asked John for financial assistance in order to obtain a dissolution of her marriage to Anderkin. She moved to Vegas to get it. On December 7 Sally was granted a divorce from Anderkin, who appeared in the proceedings through counsel. During the six-week interval prior to the divorce decree, John divided his time between Las Vegas and Burlington. John proposed marriage to Sally when they returned to Burlington. Sally declined. John and Sally and eventually Sally returned to Ohio and began living with her ex-husband Anderkin. A few months later, Anderkin went into military service and Sally moved in with his parents. She married one Frank Gilvin in Dayton, Ohio, on October 31, 1968. Sally's second marriage was apparently as troubled as her first and she once again returned to the Burlington area with John's financial assistance. Subsequently, John again accompanied her to Las Vegas, paying all expenses involved, and Sally was granted a default divorce from Gilvin on September 3, 1969. Evidently, upon the divorce from Gilvin, Sally and John returned to Burlington where their relationship became matrimonially inclined. On April 4, 1970, John and Sally entered into an antenuptial agreement whereby, in essence, Sally waived 'all statutory or common law rights that she may have as the wife of John during John's lifetime and/or as the surviving spouse in the property or estate of John. ' In exchange for said waiver, John agreed to secure insurance on his life in the face amount of $100,000 and to name Sally as primary beneficiary thereof. The agreement stated its execution was prompted by the fact John and Sally 'are contemplating marriage and may be married in the near future.' Upon their arrival in Hawaii to get married, John told Sally he wanted to delay their marriage plans, explaining he had waited until the day before their departure to tell his daughter of their matrimonial intentions and he felt she needed more time to adjust to the situation. John and Sally returned to Burlington unmarried. Sally returned to Ohio and renewed her living arrangement with her ex-husband Anderkin. Again, Sally's revived relationship with her former husband only lasted for 3-4 months and she returned to the Burlington area in December of that year. That once again ended and relationship with John was rekindled and on February 14, 1971, he gave her an engagement ring. On March 29 John and Sally reaffirmed the previously executed antenuptial agreement and left for Las Vegas again with the intention to be married upon their arrival in that city. Once again, however, John and Sally returned to Burlington a few days later without having participated in a marriage ceremony. Apparently, abandonment of their plans was at John's request. Sally testified at trial that on their return flight John asked if she still wanted to get married and she responded she did. At this point, John placed a wedding band on Sally's finger. Confused about his actions, Sally asked John if they were going to be married upon their return to Iowa. John allegedly responded a marriage ceremony was unnecessary in Iowa and asserted they were 'just as much married as anybody else there.' John denied any symbolic significance in the gift of the ring, explaining he was only motivated by the fact he no longer had use for it. In response to Sally's expressed fear of potential embarrassment, John testified he told Sally she could move into his home temporarily and could use his name. He denied telling Sally they were 'as much married as anybody else in Iowa,' stated he recalled no in-flight conversation concerning their relationship and asserted he clearly told Sally he did not wish to marry her. Various individuals were informed by Sally that she and John had in fact been married. John did nothing to deny or dispute his alleged marital relationship with Sally. The couple received wedding gifts from a number of people, including John's mother and brother and John's attorney. They received mail addressed to and traveled together as Mr. and Mrs. John Winegard. They attended family gatherings and sent out Christmas cards with 'John and Sally Winegard' engraved thereon. Sally's picture appeared in the local newspaper and she was referred to therein as Mrs. John Winegard. In addition, Sally was given or had access to numerous credit cards, some of which listed the owner thereof as Mrs. John Winegard. John and Sally's home life was apparently fairly stable until December 1971, eight months after their Las Vegas trip. At that time, Sally testified she felt John was involved with another woman and confronted him with her suspicions. John confirmed her belief and from that point on the parties' relationship deteriorated. February 6, 1973, Sally's petition for dissolution of marriage was filed. Sally Ann Winegard (W) sought dissolution of her alleged common law marriage to respondent, John Robert Winegard (H). H denied the existence of the relationship. The court concluded a common law marriage relationship had been established. Relying upon that determination, W filed an application for temporary attorney fees and was awarded temporary attorney fees in the amount of $7,500. H 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