Frey v. Frey
Pennsylvania Superior Court
821 A.2d 623 (2003)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
After six years of marriage, James Frey (plaintiff) filed for divorce from Cheryl Frey (defendant). James claimed they effectively separated when he filed for divorce although they continued to live together. James said he stayed only for their daughter’s benefit and because he built the house and owned the business next door. James also said the couple slept in separate rooms and stopped having sex. James went on family vacations and shopping trips but ate most of his meals with his mother, eating at home with only his daughter. Cheryl testified the couple had not separated and continued having sex regularly until a meeting with divorce attorneys two years later, when she realized they would not reconcile. She said she continued cleaning the house and doing James’s laundry, and they occasionally had dinner out together, sought marriage counseling, and joined in school activities, holiday parties, and family vacations. James countered that Cheryl knew he did those things solely for their daughter’s benefit. The trial court found the couple separated when James filed and granted the divorce. Cheryl appealed, arguing that the parties had not effectively separated until two years later and that the marriage was not irretrievably broken.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.