## Facts

- Peggy Wuebker (plaintiff) and Myrle Wuebker (defendant) married in 1973.
- Both spouses worked full-time during the marriage.
- Peggy testified that Myrle regularly made significant decisions without consulting her, including purchasing a car without discussing it with her first.
- Peggy testified that Myrle did not help with household chores even though she also worked full-time.
- Peggy testified that the parties sometimes went for weeks without speaking and that the relationship involved sustained emotional distance.
- In July 2002, Peggy filed for divorce alleging incompatibility and, in the alternative, gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty.
- Myrle denied the allegations and maintained that there were no problems in the marriage.
- After hearing the evidence, the trial court did not grant the divorce on incompatibility and instead granted a divorce on the statutory ground of extreme cruelty.
- Myrle appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support a finding of extreme cruelty.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by granting a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty where the evidence showed a continuing pattern of unilateral decision-making, refusal to assist with household responsibilities, and prolonged noncommunication rather than a single overtly “cruel” act.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce decree.
- Because Myrle denied incompatibility, the trial court could not grant a divorce on that ground and properly considered the alternative statutory grounds alleged.
- The appellate court held that extreme cruelty may be shown through a continuing course of conduct that causes serious mental suffering and makes the marriage intolerable, even without physical violence or one discrete act that is plainly “cruel.”
- The evidence of weeks-long silent treatment, lack of household support despite dual employment, and repeated unilateral major decisions provided competent, credible support for the trial court’s finding of extreme cruelty.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and declined to reweigh the testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Incompatibility is not available as a divorce ground when one spouse denies that the parties are incompatible.
- “Extreme cruelty” under Ohio divorce law is not limited to physical abuse; it includes conduct that seriously impairs a spouse’s mental well-being, destroys peace of mind, and renders marital life intolerable.
- Extreme cruelty may be established by a pattern of conduct and need not be proved by a single extreme incident; relatively ordinary acts, when repeated and combined, may satisfy the standard if their overall effect is intolerable.
- On appeal from a divorce decree following a bench trial, reviewing courts give substantial deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and will affirm where the judgment is supported by some competent, credible evidence.

## Conclusion

The Third District affirmed the trial court’s decree granting Peggy Wuebker a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, holding that Myrle Wuebker’s ongoing conduct—weeks of silence, refusal to share household duties despite both parties’ full-time work, and unilateral major decisions—was sufficient to support a finding that the marriage had become intolerable, and the trial court’s credibility-based findings were supported by competent, credible evidence.


Wuebker v. Wuebker, Case Number 2-93-04, 2003-Ohio-2954 (2003)