MAGGIE ROBERTSON v. WILLIAM P. ROBERTSON

Minnesota Supreme Court1917-11-09No. No. 20,544

138 Minn. 290

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that equity courts have jurisdiction to award separate maintenance to wives independently of divorce proceedings, and may grant temporary support, attorney's fees, and suit money in such actions without statutory authorization.

A wife sought separate maintenance from her husband through an equity action, and the trial court awarded her temporary support of $40 per month, $75 in attorney's fees, and $10 in suit money. The husband appealed, challenging both the court's jurisdiction to hear the case and the adequacy of the amounts awarded.

The court held that equity courts possess independent jurisdiction to grant separate maintenance to wives outside the context of divorce or separation proceedings, citing the prevailing and settled law across multiple jurisdictions. The court further established that temporary support (similar to temporary alimony pending the outcome of litigation), attorney's fees, and suit money may all be awarded in such actions. The husband's argument that attorney's fees and suit money constitute statutory costs that courts cannot award without legislative authorization was rejected, as these payments serve to enable the wife to pursue necessary maintenance litigation and constitute support rather than costs under the relevant statute.

Regarding the specific amounts awarded, the court found them reasonable given the husband's monthly earnings of $75 to $80 and his possession of property including a home. Although characterizing the award as liberal, the court determined it was not so excessive as to require reversal, noting it was temporary in nature and that a full award could be determined after trial on the merits.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether courts of equity possess jurisdiction to decree separate maintenance absent a divorce or separation proceeding
Whether temporary support and attorney's fees may be awarded in a separate maintenance action
Whether attorney's fees and suit money constitute statutory costs or support payments
Whether the amounts awarded were excessive under the circumstances

Procedural posture

The husband appealed from a trial court order granting the wife temporary support, attorney's fees, and suit money in her separate maintenance action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Dibell, C.

This is an action in equity by a wife against her husband for separate maintenance. The court allowed temporary support, suit money and attorney’s fees. From the order making such allowance the defendant appeals.

"While there is a contrariety of decision the prevailing and growing view is that a court of equity, independent of a proceeding for divorce or separation, has jurisdiction to decree the wife separate maintenance. See note to Lang v. Lang, 70 W. Va. 205, 73 S. E. 716, in 38 L.R.A.(N. S.) 950, and Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1129; note to In re Popejoy, 26 Colo. 32, 55 Pac. 1083, in 77 Am. St. 222; 21 Cyc. 1598, 1603; 10 Dec. Dig. Husband & Wife, § 285, et seq.; 26 Cent. Dig. Id. §§ 1074-1099; 1 R. C. L. 878, et seq.; 2 Nelson, Divorce & Separation, § 1000, et seq. The prevailing view is the settled law of this state. Stephen v. Stephen, 102 Minn. 301, 113 N. W. 913; Baier v. Baier, 91 Minn. 165, 97 N. W. 671; Jacobs v. Jacobs, 136 Minn. 190, 161 N. W. 525, L.R.A. 1917D, 971.

In such an action temporary support in the nature of temporary alimony pendente lite may be granted and this without statutory authorization. Galland v. Galland, 38 Cal. 265; Daniels v. Daniels, 9 Colo. 133, 10 Pac. 657; Simpson v. Simpson, 91 Iowa, 235, 59 N. W. 22; McFarland v. McFarland, 64 Miss. 449, 1 South. 508; Milliron v. Milliron, 9 S. D. 181, 68 N. W. 286, 62 Am. St. 863. And see citations above.

And an allowance for attorney’s fees and the costs of suit may be made. Finn v. Finn, 62 Iowa, 482, 17 N. W. 739; Milliron v. Milliron, 9 S. D. 181, 68 N. W. 286, 62 Am. St. 863; McFarland v. McFarland, 64 Miss. 449, 1 South. 508; Simpson v. Simpson, 91 Iowa, 235, 59 N. W. 22. The defendant objects to the allowance of attorney’s fees and suit money and invokes the rule that costs are statutory and that a court of equity has no discretionary power to impose them save such as the statute gives. See G. S. 1913, § 7973, et seq.; Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 57, 51 N. W. 629, 52 N. W. 26. The rule is without application. Suit money and attorney’s fees are allowed the wife to the end that she may maintain the necessary suit against her husband. In effect -and in a proper sense the allowance is for her support, assistance and maintenance and is not an award of costs within the statute.

The court made a temporary allowance to the plaintiff of $40 per month for support and $75 attorney’s fees and $10 suit money, and it is urged that it is excessive. The defendant works in the railroad shops at Brainerd. His earnings are from $75 to $80 per month. He has some property, including a home, which apparently the plaintiff occupies. The allowance impresses us as liberal. It should not be so large as unduly to oppress the defendant and he as well as his wife has the right to share in his earnings. It is not so excessive as to justify interference. It is but temporary. If the plaintiff prevails upon the trial the court will be in position upon the evidence taken to make a just award.

Order affirmed.