Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

GEORGE A. WELLS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MATTIE BELLE ROBINSON WELLS,DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

We are generally in accord with the dissenting opinion of Judge Gaulkin, 79 N.J. Super. 388, 395 ( App. Div. 1963).

The sole question presented is whether the trial court had the power to raise the issue of recrimination and whether under the facts of this case it should have raised that issue. Assuming that a court ordinarily has discretionary power to raise, sua sponte, a recriminatory bar to plaintiff's cause of action for divorce, we agree that the judge should not have exercised that discretion under the factual complex here present.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is accordingly reversed and entry of judgment of divorce in favor of plaintiff is directed.

For reversal — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For affirmance — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WELLS v. WELLS
(Mar 16, 1964)