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


ProcedureIn a marriage dissolution action, respondent wife challenged a judgment from the District Court, Hennepin County (Minnesota), which granted petitioner husband's petition for dissolution upon findings of serious marital discord and irretrievable breakdown pursuant to the no-fault divorce statute, Minn. Stat. § 518.06 (1976). The wife also appealed from an order denying her alternative motion for a new trial.

Facts: William Hagerty (P) sought a divorce from Claire Hagerty (D) on the grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship" after D had asked him to leave the family home on account of his alcoholism. At trial, D asserted the marriage could be saved if P would seek treatment, and unsuccessfully sought a court order dismissing the petition until P completed treatment. The trial court dissolved the marriage on grounds of irreconcilable differences resulting from discord and breakdown of the marriage.

Issue: Whether the petitioner's untreated alcoholism can or should defeat findings of discord and breakdown. The “can” issue is one of statutory construction; the “should” issue is one of public policy.

Holding: No. Judgment affirmed. The Court held that: (1) record supported findings by trial court of serious marital discord and irretrievable breakdown; (2) evidence of husband's untreated alcoholism could not defeat findings of serious marital discord and irretrievable breakdown warranting grant of dissolution; and (3) as matter of judicial policy, Supreme Court would not create exception to irretrievable breakdown criterion for grant of marital dissolution requiring treatment before alcoholic can obtain dissolution.

AnalysisThe "can" issue is one of statutory construction, and there is no requirement to encourage reconciliation. The test for determin-ing if a marriage is irretrievably broken is simply whether, without regard to fault, the marriage relationship is for all intents and purposes ended. The "should" issue is a matter of public policy, but the judiciary will not create extensions of statutory provisions that are not appropriately made by the legislature. Therefore, the court will not apply the alcoholism exception to the findings of discord and breakdown.