ABSTRACT OF DIVORCE OF RUBY L BRAINARD FROM WALTER J BRAINARD: Becky Falin's Genealogy Website

ABSTRACT OF DIVORCE OF RUBY L BRAINARD FROM WALTER J BRAINARD

Source: State of Ohio, Lake County Court Records, Ruby L Brainard, Richmond, Ohio (Plaintiff) vs. Walter J Brainard, Richmond, Ohio (Defendent), Lake Co Courthouse, Painesville, OH, microfilm Plaintiff says that for more than a year last passed and to the date hereof she has been and now is a resident of Lake County living at Richmond therein; that for twenty years and more she has been the wife of the defendent to whom she was duly married; that there has been born of said marriage four children, two of whom are dead and two are living, one, a boy of the age of 16 years and one a girl now 12 years old.That ever since their marriage she has conducted hereself as a faithful wife to the defendent and worked not only in the home but on the lands where they live and also went out to service to aid in the support of the family and to furnish them proper clothing and maintenance. That the defendent has been guilty of gross neglect of duty to her and for more than three years last passed has failed to provide her with any clothing and although an ablebodied man was so shiftless that he could not hold a position and she and the children have been kept in poverty so far as the earnings of the defendent are concerned. That he has for years been guilty of extreme cruelty to her and has on many occasions, the date of which she cannot now name, has struck, kicked and shamefully abused this plaintiff and that for years she has endured the same for the purpose of keeping a home and shelter for herself and her children and to keep them together. That about two weeks prior to the date hereof the defendent struck her in the back and face and was beating her when her children interfered to save her from further violence; that the defendent was arrested for his cruelty; that the above episode in their married life is but one incident where the defendent has been cruel to her by actual criminal assaults; that on one occasion which she now recalls he placed a revolver close to her hair and threatened to shoot her by which she became greatly terrified and on many occasions she avers that the defendent has threatened and she has been kept much of the time in mental torment and fear. That he has cruelly and wantonly beaten and abused their children in her presence for the purpose of grieving the plaintiff and has struck her when she interceded in their behalf. That the defendent is the owner of personal property of some value, a team of horses and wagons, a cow and three pigs. That thru their joint efforts in the many years of their married life they have saved money and purchased a house and lot of small value in Richmond Village, Lake County, and also six vacant lots, all of which stand in the name of the defendent; that recently the father of the defendent conveyed to him and to this plaintiff jointly, about ninety acres of land situated in Andover or West Andover in Ashtabula County, Ohio, which is encumbered by a contract of life lease to care for the grantor for the period of his life. That the defendent is a man given to the use of intoxicating liquors whenever opportunity offeres or the same can be obtained; that both when under the influence of liquer and naturally the defendent is of a cruel disposition both to the plaintiff and to the children and has vented his spite and cruelty on them on many occasions as hereinbefore alleged. That he is an unworthy person to have the custody of said children especially of their infant daughter and she desires their custody, especially the said daughter, her son being now of the age of 16 years may be beyond the control of this proceeding of court or parents. That about a week prior to the date hereof the defendent left her as she believes temporarily, to go to Ashtabula and left her no money or means of any provision for her support or maintenance even for the necessities of life but on the contrary by published notice advised all persons against the plaintiff and that she should not be trusted or credit given to her on his account. That by reason thereof she was compelled to take her children and go for shelter and support to her mother who has a home in Richmond where she is now living and is goint out to service in picking berries and doing other outdoor farm work which she can obtain to provide for herself and children the common necessities of life. That she has no money or means with which to make the required deposit for costs in this case but in that behalf she has been left helpless and penniless. She avers the fact to be that the defendent has threatened to convey his interest in the house and lot and vacant lots in Richmond which by her own tail she has aided in acquiring and also whatever interest she has in the real estate owned by them jointly in Ashtabula County or to encumber the same. Wherefore plaintiff prays that she may be divorced from said defendent; that she may have the custody of said children awarded to her and especially is she interested as a mother that the custody of said infant daughter may be awarded to her; that she may have decreed to her in kind the cow and usehold goods which are of small value but which will aid her in maintaining a home for her children; that she may be decreed the house and lot in Richmond and said either lots lying contiguous thereto and such other provision for her relief and support and maintenance and that of her children as may seem just to the court; that the defendent may be enjoined from selling, disposing or encumbering said real estate or any part thereof ending the hearing of this case and from disturbing her in the sole custody of said infant children especially their minor daughter and that on the final hearing hereof she may be awarded such decree for alimony and the division of their real estate all of which is of small value, as may seem just to the court and for other proper order and relief is the premises. Ruby L. Brainard being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that the facts stateed and averments contained in her foregoing petition are true in substance and in fact as she believes. [signed Ruby L Brainard] Sworn to before me and signed in my presence this 13th day of July, 1929 [signed Frances Ries, Notary Public]

Source: State of Ohio, Lake County Court Records, Ruby L. Brainard [Plaintiff] vs. Walter J Brainard [Defendent], Lake Co Courthouse, microfilm This day, to-wit, January 9, being a day in the January 1930 term of this court, came the plaintiff and her attorneys, the defendent having failed to answer, cross petition or other pleading in this case. Thereupon the court finds as facts in this case that at the time of this action was begun the said defendent was a resident of Lake County living at his home in Richmond. That he was duly served with summons and a copy of the petition in this action by leaving same at his usual place of residence according to law. The court further finds that as matter of fact the said defendent had personal service and notice of the pendency of this action and actually received and took said summons and copy of the petition thus delivered for him at his usual place of residence and thereupon became fully aware of the contents of the said petition and said summons. Thereupon the court further finds that for more than thirty days next prior to the filing of her petition herein and for more than a year and for many years next prior thereto she has been, then was and now is a bona fide resident of the Village of Richmond or Grand River in said County of Lake. The court further finds from the evidence that the plaintiff is a person of good moral character and that the allegations made in ther petition for her divorce are true. That the defendent on various occasions has assaulted and beaten the plaintiff and has been guilty as charged in the petition of extreme cruelty to her for which she is entitled to be divorced from said defendent. The court further finds that during the pendency of this action adn shortly before the case was set for trial, the said defendent by threats, duress and fraud, induced the plaintiff to sign a certain agreement purporting to divide the real estate and personal property between them and else to dispose of the custody of their four minor children as expressed in said contract, and the same in open court having been presented, the court finds as fact that said contract was unjust and unfair and wrongfully procured from the plaintiff and the same is hereby adjudged and decreed to be null and void and is cancelled. Thereupon it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the marriage contract heretofore existing between said parties be and the same is hereby held void and cancelled and each and both of said parties are released from the obligations of the same. It is further adjudged and decreed that all of the real estate of the said defendent situated in Lake County and consisting of six lots in the Village of Richmond, Lake County, be and the name is hereby adjudged, decreed and awarded to the plaintiff as alimony and to be her sole and separate property free from any right, title, interest or claims of the said defendent therein at law or in equity or otherwise. A description of which property is hereto attached maked "A" and entered of record as part of this decree. It is further ordered that within five days from the entry of this decree that said defendent shall by quitclaim deed convey to the plaintiff all his interest therein and upon his failure or neglect so to do, this decree shall oeprate in law and equity as such conveyance and the said defendent shall be and his is hereby barred of all interest therin. It is further adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff shall have and possess as her own separate property, all the household goods and furniture of every kind and description situated and being in the home of the plaintiff in Richmond. It is further ordered that the said plaintiff shall have the exclusive custody of said minor children until the further order of the proper court with the right of the said defendent to visit them at their home with their mother at any reasonable time and when he is in fit condition to thus see and visit them. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that within five days from the entry of this decree the said plaintiff shall convey by quitclaim deed to the defendent, all her right, title and interest in about 97 acres of land situated in Ashtabula County, Ohio, in the Township of Andover and upon her refusal or neglect to make such conveyance, this decree shall operate as a conveyance of said property to him. It is further adjudged and decreed that the said defendent shall have and possess as his own property, all the farm implements formely kept at their home in Richmond Village free from any right, title or interest of the plaintiff therein. It is further adjudged and decreed by the court that the exclusive custody of the said minor children be and the same is hereby awarded to the plaintiff as hereinbefore ordered and for the purpose of aiding her in their support and maintenance, it is adjudged and decreed by the court and the said defendent is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $5.00 per week for the minor child, Mary, now twelve years of age to and until she arrives at the full age of sixteen years. Said first payment to be made on the 11th day of January, 1930, and on each Saturday thereafter until the order of the court, payments to be made to the Clerk of the Court and her receipt for the same to be sufficient voucher to the defendent. The prompt payment of the said sum of $5.00 per week as hereinbefore ordered is hereby made one of the essential terms of this decree. In case of the failure of either of said parties to convey their interest in the real estate as hereinbefore ordered, it is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall cause so much of this decree as shown the conveyance thereof to be entered of record in the proper record of deeds to show title to the same in the respective parties. It is further adjudged and decreed that the defendent be and he is herby enjoined as in the petition prrayed, from coming on the premises or lands where the plaintiff now lives and which by this decree are awarded to her or entering her home except for the purposes and at the times hereinbefore named and from disturbing her in the sole custody of said infant children and from in any way doing any violance to her person or property and said injunction as prayed for is hereby made permanent. It is further ordered that the said defendent pay the costs of this action to be taxed for which judgement is hereby rendered and execution awarded for the collection of same. [signed W S] Slocum, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County]

Source: State of Ohio, Lake County Court Records, Ruby L. Brainard [Plaintiff] vs. Walter J Brainard [Defendent], Lake Co. Courthouse, microfilm Notice is hereby given that the defendent has filed a motion, a copy of which is as follows: Comes now the defendent and moves the Court that the decree rendered in the within entitled cause be vacated and set aside and that defendent be given opportunity to answer herein for the reason and upon the grounds that: 1. Fraud was practiced by the successful part in obtaining said decree. 2. Said decree was obtained in whole or in a material part, by false testimony on the part of the successful party. and that said motion will be for hearing before Hon. W.S. Slocum, Judge of the Common Pleas Court, Painesville, Ohio, on the 1st day of March, 1930, at 9 o'clock, or as soon thereafter as convenient for the court. [signed Bostwick & Bostwick, Attorneys for the Defendent]

Source: State of Ohio, Lake County Court Records, Ruby L. Brainard [Plaintiff] vs. Walter J Brainard [Defendent], Lake Co. Courthouse, microfilm For answer to the petition of the plaintiff, defendent says, that he admits that plaintiff for more than one year last past and to the date of her petition has been and was then a resident of Lake County, living at Richmond, Ohio. Admits that for twenty years and more she has been the wife of the defendent to whom she was duly married. Further answering defendent denies each and every allegation, averment and statement contained in the plaintiff's petition, not herein expressly admitted to be true. By way of further defense the defendent says that for 15 years past and up to the date plaintiff filed her petition he has been a bona fide resident of the State of Ohio and this County of Lake; that he was married to the plaintiff on or about the 1st day of March, 1909; that 6 children were born of said marriage, 2 of whom are dead and 4 of whom are living; that the names of ages of those living are as follows: Carl Brainard, aged 16 years, Dorothy Brainard, aged 18 years, Mary Brainard, aged 12 years, Irene Brainard, aged 20 years. Plaintiff further says, that on July 7, 1929, plaintiff left him and was away about a month. That during this period plaintiff commenced an action of divorce, alimony, custody of children, and relief, said Petition being filed on the 23rd day fo July, 1929. That on the 24th day of July, 1929, defendent was served with a summons and copy of said Petition. That on the 6th day of August, 1929, plaintiff came back to defendents home and remained there until August 14, 1929; that during this period of 8 days, which was after the times of the grievances in the Petition set for, plaintiff condoned said alleged acts and forgave defendent and plaintiff and defendent lived and freely cohabitated together as husband and wife and plaintiff acted toward defendent as a faithful and kind wife, stating to defendent, "that she had withdrawn her divorce case." That on August 14, 1929, plaintiff again left defendent's home and returned again on August 21, 1929, and remained in defendent's home again until the 23d day of October, 1929. That during said period of 32 days plaintiff and defendent lived and freely cohabitated together as husband and wife; that said period of 62 days was after the times of the grievances set forth by plaintiff in her Petition and by her said conduct toward defendent further condoned said alleged acts. That on the 23d day of October, 1929, defendant went to his farm in Andover, Ohio, and was away 5 days, returning to his home on the 28th day of October, 1929; that defendent's son, Carl Brainard, brought him home from said farm; that plaintiff and defendent lived and cohabitated together that night as husband and wife in further condonation, on the part of plaintiff toward defendent, of said alleged acts contained in said Petition. Defedent further says that during the months of November and December, 1929, up until a separation agreement was signed, defendent and plaintiff lived and freely cohabitated together numberous times as husband and wife, the exact dates defendent being unable to state, and by her conduct further condoning said alleged acts of defendent. Defendent further says that a separation agreement was agreed upon by himself and plaintiff, Mr. Daniels, the assistant prosecutor of said county, prepared said agreement according to their wishes. That said agreement is hereto attached and marked, Exhibit A, and made a part hereof. That the terms of said agreement have been fully carried out. Wherefore defendent prays that the Petition of plaintiff be dismissed. [Bostwick & Bostwick, Attorneys of the Defendent] Exhibit A - Separation Agreement This agreement made this 19th day of December, 1929, by and between Walter J Brainard of Andover, Ohio, hereinafter called the husband, and Ruby Pearl Brainard, of Grand River, Ohio, hereinafter called the wife, Whereas, unfortunate differences and disputes have arisen between the parties hereto and the parties are about to separate, and in fact are living apart, within the intent of living apart from each other during the remainder of their natural lives. Now, therefore, in consideration of the promises herein, and in settlement and adjustment, and in compromise of all property questions and rights, it is hereby mutally agreed by and between the said husband and wife, as follows. 1. That the said husband agrees to turn over, transfer and convey by quit-claim deed to the said wife the following described property, to-wit: Situated in the township of Painesville, County of Lake and State of Ohio; and known as being Lot Nubmer Eleven (11) Block 122 of the G E Meigs Re-survey in the Village of Richmond and Painesville Township. For a more particular description, reference is hereby made to the recorded Plat of said re-survey shown in Lake County Portfolio of Plats, A, page 37" "Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake and State of Ohio, and known as being Lot no. Twenty-Two (22), Block No. 122, in the GE Meigs Survey in the Village of Richmond and Painesville Township. Being a lot 44 feet fronting on Wetmore Ave., and extending back 124 feet to an alley. For a more particular description, reference is hereby made to the Recorded Plat of said survey, duly recorded in Lake County Records of Plats. "Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake, State of Ohio, and known as being Lot No. 23 in Block 122 Meigs Survey in said Township." 2. In addition thereto the said husband agrees that the household goods, furniture, bed-clothing and all personal effects in the residence at Grand River, Ohio, and now in the possession of the said wife, shall be the sole and separate property of the said wife. The said wife agrees to waive by quit-claim deed, especially releasing all right of dower to the said husband the following described property, to-wit: Situated in the Township of Andover, County of Ashtabula and State of Ohio." 4. In addition thereto the wife agrees that all farm tools, live stock and equipment now located at Grand River, Ohio, and on the farm in Andover, Ohio, shall be the sole and separate property of the husband. 5. There are now four (4) children born of said marriage, Irene, 20 years of age; Dorothy E, 18 years of age; Carl 16 years of age, and May 12 years of age. It is especially agreed that said children shall remain with the said wife, and that the custody and control shall be given to her absolutely. It is agreed that the said husband shall not be liable in any manner for the support of said children as between himself and the said wife, so long as they remain with Mrs. Brainard. The said husband shall have the right to visit said children at any and all reasonable hours and places, and shall also have right to have anyone or all of the children visit him at different periods during vacation, not to exceed one (1) month at any one time. It is further understood that in the event Mrs. Brainard keeps a house of ill repute, or shall board or harbor men other than her husband in her home, that in such an event said husband, Walter J Brainard, shall have the right to have custody and control of the children, and during such time as said children remain with him, he is to be fully liable for their support. 6. The said wife, for the consideration aforesaid and upon receipt thereof, does release the said husband of all obligations of future support and does further release and relinguish said husband, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from all right or claim by way of dower, inheritance, descent and distribution in and to any or all property of the said husband, which is now of which he may hereafter obtain, and further released any or all rights to a distributive share of his personal estate and all claims for an allowance for a year's support, and all other rights and claims of every kind and every nature growing out of said marriage relation. 7. Said husband for the considerations aforesaid, does release and relinguish all right, title and intersat to the said household goods, all rights or claims by way of dower, property of said wife, which is now heirs or may be hereafter acquired by the said wife and further released any and all rights to her personal estate and all rights and claims growing out of said marriage relation. 8. It is understood and agreed that the mututal releases set forth in Items 6 and 7, shall not be operative and effective unless the said division of property is made as set forth heretofore in this agreement. 9. It is further understood and agreed that upon the division of property as heretofore agreed upon, then and in such event, and thereafter, the parties shall be barred from any and all rights or claims in and to the personal property and real property which may be acquired by the other. 10. It is mutually agreed that this agreement shall be a full and complete settlement of all of the property rights of said husband and wife, and it is further understood and agreed that in the event that either party shall at any time hereafter obtain a divorce from the other, that this Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, subject to the approval of the Court, may be incorporated in a Journal Entry as and part of the said decree. 11. It is further agreed that in the event that the parties hereto shall in the future decide to live together as man and wife, that this agreement shall become null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect in law or equity. Adjustments made. to Paragraph 8 [6 lots in Richmond to plaintiff; property in Andover to defendent] Paragraph 14 [Defendent does not have to pay $5.00 per week support to plaintiff]

Source: Lake Co. OH Court Records, In the Common Pleas Court of Lake County, Ohio; Case 10879; Ruby L. Brainard (Plaintiff) vs. Walter Brainard (Defendent), Journal Entry, microfilm It appearing to the court that a motion is now pending in this court to modify and correct the decree formerly signed and entered in this case, by reason of the fact that the wrong lot number and Block number were shown in said decree as being the description of the lot given to defendent. It is therefore considered by the court that no part of said decree be certified to the recorder of this county by the clerk of the court and that nothing be done by said clerk in the way transferring any of the property of the parties hereto, until the further order of this court and that anything in the said decree to the contrary be disregarded by said clerk until the further order of this court. [Judge]

Source: Lake Co. OH Court Records, Painesville, Ohio; Elizabeth S Murphy, April 28, 1930, microfilm Revised statement of costs April 11, 1930 total $34.83 I have been to all of the loan Co. in Jefferson and Andover and they all say about the same. That they won't be able to let me have a loan on the farm before June, sometime and in the Journal Entry. That I have from the Court, Mr. Harold K Bastwick sent me. I was to have a deed of lot 22 Block 122 Mag's Survey if she did not deed it to me. That in 3 days from April 9, 1930, I was to have one from the Clerk of Courts which I have not resived. When I get the deed of lot 11 block 122 Mag's Survey I will come to Painesville and try and raise the money on it for the present until I can get the loan on the farm to straighten all Bills. I have wrote Mr. Bastwick but havent't no answer at present. I don't like to loose any more time than I really have to as I am busy getting in crops here, but I will come as soon as I get the deed so I can raise the money. Yours Truly, Mr. Walter J Brainard, Andover, Ohio, Ashtabula Co., R.F.D. Route 1.

Source: State of Ohio, Lake County Court Records, In the Court of Common Pleas, No. 10,879; Ruby L Brainard, Richmond, OH (plaintiff); Walter J Brainard, Richmond, OH (Defendent), microfilm This day, to-wit, March 31, 1931, this cause come on for hearing upon the motion of plaintiff to correct and modify the decrees heretofore entered in this cause, upon consideration the court find that said decree entered herein on January 9, 1930, and modified April 7, 1930, should be finally modified and corrected to read as follows: It is ordered, adjusted and decreed that the plaintiff, Ruby L Lockwood, have and possess as and for her alimony the following described real estate, to-wit: Parcel No. 1 - Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake and State of Ohio, and known as being Lot Number Eleven (11), the Village of Ricmond and Painesville Township. For a more particular description reference is hereby made to the recorded plat of said re-survey shown in Lake County Portfolio of Plats, A, page 37. Parcel No. 2. Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake and State of Ohio, and known as being Lot No. Twenty-two Survey in the Village of Richmond and Painesville Township. Being a lot 44 feet fronting on Wetmore Ave, and extending back 124 feet to an alley. For a more particular description, reference is hereby made to the recorded plat of said survey, duly recorded in Lake County Records of Plats. Parcel No. 3. Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake, State of Ohio, and known as being Lot No. 23 in Block 132 Meigs Survey in said Township. Parcel No. 4. Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake and State of Ohio, and known as being Lot Number Twelve (12), Block 121 of the G E Meigs Re-survey in the Village of Richmond and Painesville Township. For a more particular description reference is hereby made to the recorded plat of said re-survey shown in Lake County Portfolio of Plats, A, page 39. Parcel No. 5. Situated in the Township of Painesville, County of Lake, and State of Ohio, and known as being Lot No. 4, Block 120, Meigs Survey. Parcel No. 6. Situated in Painesville Township, in the County of Lake and State of Ohio, and known as being Sublot 4, Block 123 Meigs and containing 12/100 acre. And the said defendent is hereby ordered to convey said premises and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging to the plaintiff, her heirs and assigns forever, by a good and sufficient deed in fee simple, subject to liens and mortgages now of record which plaintiff assumes and agrees to pay, and free from any right or claim of said defendent to any estate by dower or otherwise therein. It is further ordered that upon the failure of said defendent to execute said conveyance within five days from the entry hereof that this decree shall operate as such conveyance, and in the case it is ordered that the clerk cause so much of this decree to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of this County as will show such chain of title and ownership. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this plaintiff, Ruby L. Brainard, pay to the defendent Walter J. Brainard, the sum of seventy-five dollars and sixty-six cents ($75.66) in money on or before one year from this date of this decree and the same hereby made a lien on the above described real estate, subject to all prior liens thereon existing, and in default of such payment within one year execution is allowed to issue thereon. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that each party is to pay one-half (1/2) of the court costs herein of this motion.[ Judge of the Court of Common Pleas]

Home Page | What's New | Most Wanted | Surnames | Photos | Histories | Documents | Cemeteries | Places | Dates | Reports | Sources