OLA B. HAHN
v.
JEROME L. HAHN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this 1943 divorce case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a dismissal of the wife's divorce complaint, holding that a husband's deliberate course of psychological cruelty—repeatedly telling his wife he did not love her, that he married her by mistake, and that he loved another woman—constitutes extreme cruelty sufficient grounds for divorce under Florida law.
Yes. The court held that an overt or affirmative act deliberately committed by one spouse with knowledge that it will cause the other spouse great mental pain and suffering may constitute extreme cruelty, even without physical violence. Mental pain and suffering are among the most important hazards to mental and physical health, and the husband's conduct was sufficiently cruel to entitle the wife to a divorce.
“The overt or affirmative act deliberately committed by one spouse toward the other with the knowledge on the part of the actor that such act will cause the other spouse great mental pain and suffering may constitute extreme cruelty, although the spouse committing such act may honestly believe that he or she has the right to pursue such course.”
Establishes the legal standard for extreme cruelty based on deliberate psychological harm rather than physical violence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOla B. Hahn and Jerome L. Hahn married on October 10, 1942, and separated about two months later on December 5, 1942. Within two weeks of the marriage…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mental Pain And Suffering cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal brings for review final decree dismissing bill of complaint in a divorce suit which was heard upon bill, answer and testimony taken before the court.
The record shows that the parties were married on October 10th, 1942, and lived together as man and wife until about December 5th, 1942; that about two weeks after the marriage the defendant-husband told the wife that he. did not love her; that he did not know why he had married her; that he loved another girl and wanted a divorce so he could *585go and marry the other girl. The testimony is that he repeated these things to the wife night after night; in fact, as she says, he told her these things every night when he came home. He also showed her letters which he received from the other girl and accused his wife of going out with other men. The uncontradicted testimony shows that she did not go out with other men; that she did all she could to be agreeable and to make his life pleasant and to perform every duty devolved upon her as a wife.
The overt or affirmative act deliberately committed by one spouse toward the other with the knowledge on the part of the actor that such act will cause the other spouse great mental pain and suffering may constitute extreme cruelty, although the spouse committing such act may honestly believe that he or she has the right to pursue such course.
It is now well recognized that mental pain and suffering (commonly called worry) are among the most important hazards to both mental and physical héalth.
The spouse who gets drunk and beats the other may be condemned as a brute, but certainly is no worse than that other spouse who will neither drink nor fight, but will deliberately do those things which he or she knows will cause his or her spouse to suffer great mental pain and anguish, leaving mortal wounds upon the mind and heart, even though no scars are to be seen and no blood is spilled.
We think the record is sufficient to show the wife entitled to a divorce under the rules enunciated in Henderson v. Henderson, 137 Fla. 770, 189 Sou. 24; Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709, 188 So. 584; Roebling v. Roebling, 119 Fla. 768, 161 So. 715; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 65; Greisen v. Greisen, 146 Fla. 94, 200 So. 523.
Therefore, the decree is reversed with directions that a decree be entered not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
So ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garland v. Claud Garland, JR., 158 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1947)…ntal torture undermining the health or tending to dethrone reason of the other is sufficient to constitute extreme cruelty as a ground for divorce. Bergman v. Bergman, 145 Fla. 10, 199 Sou. 920; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 Sou. 65; Hahn v. Hahn, 153 Fla. 584, 15 Sou. (2) 299. In this case the evidence meets none of the conditions laid down in those decisions. • We have held that in order to warrant the granting of a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, the marriage relation must be shown to have…
-
Elinor Louise O'Neill v. O'Neill, 157 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1946)…d cohabitation with the defendant intolerable and unsafe.” We hold that the allegations are sufficient, if proved, to show extreme cruelty under the enunciations of this court in the cases of Grady v. Grady, 123 Fla. 690, 167 So. 522; Hahn v. Hahn, 153 Fla. 584, 15 So. (2nd) 292, Henderson v. Henderson, 137 Fla. 770, 189 So. 24; Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709, 188 So. 580, 584; Roebling v. Roebling, 119 Fla. 769, 161 So. 715; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 65; Greisen v. Greisen, 146 Fla. 94, 200 So. 52…
Authorities Cited
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1939)
- Henderson v. Parker A. Henderson, Jr., 137 Fla. 770 (Fla. 1939)
- Roebling v. Roebling, 119 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1935)
- Greisen v. Maude H. Greisen, 146 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1941)
- Rahn v. State, 137 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1939)