Aronson v. Aronson

In Aronson v. Aronson, 115 Md. App. 78, 691 A.2d 785, cert. denied, 346 Md. 371, 697 A.2d 111 (1997), the wife sought a divorce from her husband "on the grounds of adultery and a two year separation." Id. at 81. The Court set forth the following facts, id. at 81-82: When the trial commenced. . .on those grounds, the parties had only lived separate and apart for twenty-two and a half months. Moreover, the wife had condoned the adultery in issue. Thus, the two year separation ground was not quite ripe, and there was reason to believe that the adultery would not withstand a challenge. Under these circumstances, it is particularly noteworthy that the parties had not agreed in advance of trial to an amendment of the complaint on the ground of a one year voluntary separation. Further, their separation agreement did not suggest that both parties wanted to end the marriage. Nevertheless, with only a few weeks remaining to achieve the unassailable two year ground, trial commenced in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. At trial, over the husband's vigorous objection, the court permitted appellee to amend her complaint to include a claim for divorce based on a one year voluntary separation. Ultimately, the court granted appellee an absolute divorce on that ground. On appeal, the husband challenged the grounds for divorce. We began our analysis by reviewing the Court of Appeals's decision in Wallace, 290 Md. 265, 429 A.2d 232. The Court noted in Aronson that proof of a mutually voluntary separation was lacking. The Court explained, id. at 103: "Appellee never affirmatively represented that both parties wanted to end the marriage. Instead, in response to a question from her attorney about whether appellant objected to ending the marriage, she merely said: "We really never talked about it, but he never objected." Apart from testimony that appellant agreed to the separation, she failed to describe statements or conduct by appellant that evinced his intent to end the marriage. Moreover, appellee's assertion that the parties agreed that she would move out of the marital home does not distinguish between an agreement to separate, which appellant concedes, and an agreement to separate for the particular purpose of terminating the relationship, which appellant contests." In concluding that vacatur of the divorce decree was required, the Court explained, id. at 97-98.