Pedrus J. v. Mary Johannes(1989)

POHNPEI LAW REPORTS

VOL. 3A

[3A PN.L.R. 674]

PEDRUS JOHANNES,

Petitioner

MARY JOHANNES,

Respondent

Pohnpei Civil Action No. 24-89

Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court

September 28, 1989

Petition for divorce. The parties were citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and had separated since 1970 and never cohabited again as husband and wife. The petitioner had remarried under custom and had children of that marriage. The respondent did not contest the petition. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, YOSTER CARL, Associate Justice, granting the petition, held that the parties having been separated since 1970 and never had been living together again, and with the remarrying of the petitioner reconciliation and maintenance of the bond of matrimony was then impossible.

Domestic Relations - Marriage - Ground for Divorce

A ground on which divorce may be granted is the separation of the parties for two consecutive years without cohabitation as husband and wife, whether or not by mutual consent.

Counsel for Petitioner: Joseph Phillip, Esq.

Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941

Counsel for Respondent: None

YOSTER CARL, Associate Justice

This matter came on regularly for a hearing before me on this 28th day of September, 1989, upon a petition filed by the petitioner

[3A PN.L.R. 675]

on February 6, 1989. The petitioner, Petrus Johannes, and counsel Joseph Phillip were both present. The respondent, Mary Johannes, was not present in this proceeding.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The petitioner is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia and a resident of Pohnpei State.

2. The respondent is also a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia but a resident of Kosrae State.

3. The parties were legally married in or about 1962 in the Catholic Church, Kolonia, Pohnpei State.

4. During the course of their marriage, the following were born to the parties:

a. Juliana Johannes daughter age 24;

b. David Johannes son age 22;

c. Goliath Johannes son age 21;

d. Rosemary Johannes daughter age 20;

e. Jopita Johannes daughter age 19; and

f. Hiroshi Johannes son age 18.

5. The parties were separated in or about 1970 and never again cohabited as husband and wife.

[3A PN.L.R. 676]

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action.

7. There is no real or personal property jointly owned by the parties.

8. The petitioner has remarried under custom and has children of that marriage.

9. The continued maintenance of this bond of matrimony for possible reconciliation is no longer necessary since reconciliation is now impossible.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND GOVERNING LAW

This matrimonial cause of action was filed by the petitioner Petrus Johannes on the grounds that:

1. The petitioner and the respondent have separated since or about 1970 and have never been living together again.

2. The petitioner is now remarried under custom and has children of that marriage.

3. That reconciliation and maintenance of the bond of matrimony between the parties is now impossible.

6 FSMC Section 1626(8) provides that one of the grounds on which a divorce from marriage may be granted is the separation of

[3A PN.L.R. 677]

the parties for two consecutive years without cohabitation, whether or not by mutual consent.

The respondent, Mary Johannes, did not respond to the petition for dissolution of marriage in this case although the records indicated that she had been served with the petition and summons.

JUDGMENT

On the basis of the facts found, it is the conclusion of the Court that the marriage of the parties has irretrievably broken down, and a judicial divorce as requested should be granted.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

1. The bond of marriage between Petrus Johannes and Mary Johannes is hereby dissolved and the petitioner is granted leave to divorce from the respondent.

2. No division of property, child support nor alimony is required.

3. Unless appealed, this decree becomes absolute 30 days hereafter.

So Ordered this 28th day of September 1989.


	POHNPEI LAW REPORTS VOL. 3A [3A PN.L.R. 674] PEDRUS JOHANNES, Petitioner v. MARY JOHANNES, Respondent Pohnpei Civil Action No. 24-89 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court September 28, 1989 Petition for divorce. The parties were citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and had separated since 1970 and never cohabited again as husband and wife. The petitioner had remarried under custom and had children of that marriage. The respondent did not contest the petition. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, YOSTER CARL, Associate Justice, granting the petition, held that the parties having been separated since 1970 and never had been living together again, and with the remarrying of the petitioner reconciliation and maintenance of the bond of matrimony was then impossible. Domestic Relations - Marriage - Ground for Divorce A ground on which divorce may be granted is the separation of the parties for two consecutive years without cohabitation as husband and wife, whether or not by mutual consent. Counsel for Petitioner: Joseph Phillip, Esq. Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941 Counsel for Respondent: None YOSTER CARL, Associate Justice This matter came on regularly for a hearing before me on this 28th day of September, 1989, upon a petition filed by the petitioner [3A PN.L.R. 675] on February 6, 1989. The petitioner, Petrus Johannes, and counsel Joseph Phillip were both present. The respondent, Mary Johannes, was not present in this proceeding. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The petitioner is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia and a resident of Pohnpei State. 2. The respondent is also a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia but a resident of Kosrae State. 3. The parties were legally married in or about 1962 in the Catholic Church, Kolonia, Pohnpei State. 4. During the course of their marriage, the following were born to the parties: a. Juliana Johannes daughter age 24; b. David Johannes son age 22; c. Goliath Johannes son age 21; d. Rosemary Johannes daughter age 20; e. Jopita Johannes daughter age 19; and f. Hiroshi Johannes son age 18. 5. The parties were separated in or about 1970 and never again cohabited as husband and wife. [3A PN.L.R. 676] 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action. 7. There is no real or personal property jointly owned by the parties. 8. The petitioner has remarried under custom and has children of that marriage. 9. The continued maintenance of this bond of matrimony for possible reconciliation is no longer necessary since reconciliation is now impossible. CAUSE OF ACTION AND GOVERNING LAW This matrimonial cause of action was filed by the petitioner Petrus Johannes on the grounds that: 1. The petitioner and the respondent have separated since or about 1970 and have never been living together again. 2. The petitioner is now remarried under custom and has children of that marriage. 3. That reconciliation and maintenance of the bond of matrimony between the parties is now impossible. 6 FSMC Section 1626(8) provides that one of the grounds on which a divorce from marriage may be granted is the separation of [3A PN.L.R. 677] the parties for two consecutive years without cohabitation, whether or not by mutual consent. The respondent, Mary Johannes, did not respond to the petition for dissolution of marriage in this case although the records indicated that she had been served with the petition and summons. JUDGMENT On the basis of the facts found, it is the conclusion of the Court that the marriage of the parties has irretrievably broken down, and a judicial divorce as requested should be granted. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: 1. The bond of marriage between Petrus Johannes and Mary Johannes is hereby dissolved and the petitioner is granted leave to divorce from the respondent. 2. No division of property, child support nor alimony is required. 3. Unless appealed, this decree becomes absolute 30 days hereafter. So Ordered this 28th day of September 1989.