Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DITROIA v. DITROIA (09/12/63)

September 12, 1963

DITROIA
v.
DITROIA, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 18, April T., 1963, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1955, No. 1654, in case of Salvatore E. DiTroia v. Stella I. DiTroia. Decree affirmed; reargument refused October 8, 1963.

COUNSEL

James F. Clarke, with him James B. Ceris, for appellant.

Harold Gondelman, with him Maurice B. Wechsler, for appellee.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Watkins

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 8]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting a divorce a.v.m., to the plaintiff-appellee, Salvatore E. DiTroia, from the defendant appellant, Stella I. DiTroia, on the ground of indignities to the person.

The parties were married on August 8, 1932 and resided in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania until sometime in April, 1955 when the husband left the domicile because of alleged indignities. There was one child of the marriage,

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 9]

    a daughter, Dolores Elaine Scolzo, born July 20, 1933, who resides with her husband in Pittsburgh.

It is made quite clear in the opinion of the court below that the defendant's exceptions to the master's report recommending the divorce were dismissed because of the confidence the court had in the master's careful review of the testimony and discussion of the law of the case; and the weight he gave to the disposition of credibility by the master. We have held many times that the opinion of the master should receive great consideration as the court reviews the record de novo. Bailey v. Bailey, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 534, 185 A.2d 632 (1962).

The applicable principles of law as to indignities to the person have been repeated so often that it is useless to restate them here. If credibility is resolved here in favor of the husband we must examine the record and apply the established principles of law to the evidence. There is no question that if the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses is believed and the testimony of the defendant, in the words of the master, strained the master's "credulity" and "her denials of other testimony are too vehement and sweeping to be believable", then a case of indignities to the person is made out.

The course of conduct related by the husband and his witnesses discloses that she subjected her husband to a combination of utter contempt, disdain, neglect, vulgarity, ridicule, unmerited reproach, temper tantrums, violence and a clear manifestation of settled hate and estrangement which constitute indignities to the person as defined by this Court in a long ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.