Congdon v. Congdon
Virginia Court of Appeals
578 S.E.2d 833 (2003)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Lynn Congdon (defendant) married John Congdon (plaintiff) in 1977, and three children were born of the marriage. After 22 years of marriage, John filed for divorce. At trial, Lynn admitted that she had committed adultery for at least five years. The evidence showed that John was cruel and profane and that he raged at his children and at Lynn. John enjoyed visiting strip clubs and, in the presence of their children, regaled Lynn with details of his visits. Family friends testified that they had never witnessed John show any affection to Lynn, but he had frequently complained at length about her. John’s family owned a successful trucking business, and John earned a salary of more than $250,000 per year in addition to dividends. John’s assets were valued at more than $6,000,000. Lynn did not have a college degree, had spent most of her marriage caring for the family home and children, and earned $10 per hour as a receptionist at the time of trial. The trial court found that there were extreme disparities between Lynn’s and John’s financial statuses. The court held that John’s misconduct was egregious and applied the “manifest injustice” exception to the bar on awarding support to adulterous spouses. The court ordered John to pay $2,300 in spousal support to Lynn until she died or remarried. John appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelsey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
