The evidentiary door is wide open. Harwell v. Harwell, 233 Ga. 89 (1974), held that “all evidence of the marital relation is admissible for the purpose of showing it is ‘irretrievably broken.’”
Why the Standard Is So Broad
The reason is in the nature of the question. As Harwell explained, “[c]ircumstances relating to this issue are cumulative.” A marriage does not usually end on a single identifiable day, so the court looks at the whole relationship rather than isolated acts.
Even Evidence From a Case You Lost
Harwell itself proves the point. A wife sued for divorce on cruel treatment, and in 1973 a jury refused to grant it. Weeks later she filed again, this time alleging the marriage was irretrievably broken. Her husband argued that res judicata barred her from using any evidence predating the earlier verdict.
The Court disagreed. Because the first verdict decided only that the husband was not guilty of cruel treatment, “[t]he issue of whether the marriage was ‘irretrievably broken’ was not actually litigated.” It held that “new acts or a reasonable lapse of time after an adverse verdict authorize a new suit,” and once the new suit is authorized, “all relevant evidence is admissible.”
What Carried the Day
The facts were ordinary. The wife’s original complaint was her husband’s excessive drinking. After the first trial, he moved back into the home drunk, and the wife and children left.
That was enough. The Court held the conduct “was sufficient to maintain this new suit for divorce on the ground that the marriage was ‘irretrievably broken.’”
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!