MediumBunny's question about an interlocutory appeal brings up
a subject and paints a scenario with ramifications for people
other than marriage partners.  In his or her narrative, "B"
"ran off with" someone, apparently abandoning a marriage but
not necessarily the home. MediumBunny states that "A" inhales
quantities of substance that (one assumes) are illegal and with
the potential to effect radical and dangerous changes in behavior.
If "B" could prove that "A" was an addict and therefore dangerous
before "B's" "abandonment," couldn't an argument be made in regard
to "B's" motives for *quitting* the property not out of
indifference to ownership or possession or right of enjoyment
to the premises, but out of fear for "B's" safety?

If "B" could make such an argument (I'm assuming the *cougher*
did at least inquire further about the abiding rationale or
desire to re-bond with the home), why would a judge deny such
an appeal?

Thank you.