Bennington v. Bennington
Ohio Court of Appeals
381 N.E.2d 1355 (1978)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Mary Bennington (plaintiff) and Larry Bennington (defendant) married in 1946. In 1963, Mrs. Bennington suffered a stroke that left her partially paralyzed and permanently, completely disabled. The couple ceased having sex thereafter. In 1974, Mr. Bennington moved out of the house and into a travel van on the couple’s property. He moved to the van because Mrs. Bennington kept the house at a very high temperature and also kept the doors bolted at all times such that it took 15 to 20 minutes for her to let Mr. Bennington in when he arrived home from work. After moving to the van, Mr. Bennington continued to assist his wife and to perform household chores. In November 1976, Mr. Bennington left for Arizona without intending to return. He did return a month later, however. He went back to living in the van for three months then moved to an apartment. Mrs. Bennington sued her husband for alimony only, on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and abandonment. Mr. Bennington counterclaimed for divorce on grounds including gross neglect of duty, extreme cruelty, and living separate and apart for at least two years without cohabitation. The trial court granted a divorce on the grounds of separation without cohabitation, finding that the period during which Mr. Bennington lived in the van should count as part of the two years. Mrs. Bennington appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCormac, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.