## Facts

- William J. Hagerty (husband) and Claire Hagerty (wife) married in 1947, had five children, and lived in Minnesota.
- By the mid-1970s, family counseling and treatment programs addressed serious drug and behavioral problems among the three youngest children.
- During these family interventions, William’s alcoholism became apparent and was a major source of marital conflict.
- Claire urged William to seek alcoholism treatment; he refused. She asked him to leave the home in summer 1976, and he moved out in August 1976.
- William filed for dissolution in September 1976; he later testified that reconciliation was no longer possible, despite prior unsuccessful attempts.
- Claire asserted the marriage could be saved if William entered alcoholism treatment and was willing to reconcile only on that condition.
- Before trial, Claire moved to dismiss or condition the petition unless William completed a treatment program and aftercare; the district court denied the motion.
- After trial, the district court found the marriage irretrievably broken and dissolved it, finding alcoholism was a principal cause of serious marital discord adversely affecting William’s attitude toward the marriage.
- Claire’s posttrial motion for a new trial or amended findings was denied, and she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in finding an “irretrievable breakdown” and granting dissolution where the wife argued the husband’s alcoholism distorted his assessment and treatment might permit reconciliation.
2. Whether treatable alcoholism or a conditional willingness to reconcile requires delaying or denying dissolution under Minnesota’s no-fault statute.
3. Whether the record sufficiently supported the district court’s finding of serious marital discord adversely affecting the attitude of one or both spouses toward the marriage.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment dissolving the marriage and the order denying posttrial relief.
- The court held the district court properly applied the no-fault standard for “irretrievable breakdown.”
- The finding of serious marital discord adversely affecting at least one party’s attitude toward the marriage was supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
- The court rejected the argument that the possibility of curing alcoholism required the court to withhold dissolution.

## Legal Principles

- Under Minnesota’s no-fault dissolution statute, a marriage may be dissolved upon a finding of irretrievable breakdown shown by serious marital discord adversely affecting the attitude of one or both parties toward the marriage.
- The inquiry centers on the existence and effect of marital discord and the parties’ attitudes toward the marriage, not on allocating fault or determining whether the underlying cause of discord is curable.
- A spouse’s subjective attitude that reconciliation is not realistically possible, when supported by evidence of serious discord, may satisfy the statutory standard.
- Appellate review is deferential; a trial court’s finding of irretrievable breakdown will be upheld if supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the dissolution because substantial evidence showed long-standing, serious marital discord adversely affecting the husband’s attitude toward the marriage, and the statute did not require courts to deny or postpone dissolution based on the treatability of alcoholism or the other spouse’s conditional willingness to reconcile.


Hagerty v. Hagerty, 281 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1979)