Personally served in the District, where she continued to reside, the wife filed a plea denying that her husband was a resident of Virginia and averred that he was guilty of a fraud on the court in seeking to establish a residence for purposes of jurisdiction. The finding of the Virginia court on domicile and jurisdiction was declared to bind the wife. Davis v. Davis is distinguishable from the Williams v. North Carolina decisions in that in the former determination of the jurisdictional prerequisite of domicile was made in a contested proceeding whereas in the Williams cases it was not.
Williams I and Williams II. Prosecuted for bigamy, the defendants relied upon their Nevada decrees and won the preliminary round of this litigation, that is, in Williams I, 53 when a majority of the Justices, overruling Haddock v. Haddock , declaring that in this case, the Court must assume that the petitioners for divorce had a bona fide domicile in Nevada and not that their Nevada domicile was a sham. There is no constitutional barrier if the form and nature of substituted service meet the requirements of due process.
In view of its assumptions, which it justified on the basis of an inadequate record, the Court did not here pass upon the question whether North Carolina had the power to refuse full faith and credit to a Nevada decree because it was based on residence rather than domicile or because, contrary to the findings of the Nevada court, North Carolina found that no bona fide domicile had been acquired in Nevada. While a state can no doubt set up its own standards of domicile as to its internal concerns, I do not think it can require us to accept and in the name of the Constitution impose them on other states.
Notwithstanding that one of the deserted spouses had died since the initial trial and that another had remarried, North Carolina, without calling into question the status of the latter marriage, began a new prosecution for bigamy; when the defendants appealed the conviction resulting therefrom, the Supreme Court, in Williams II, 56 sustained the adjudication of guilt as not denying full faith and credit to the Nevada divorce decree.
Reiterating the doctrine that jurisdiction to grant divorce is founded on domicile, 57 the Court held that a decree of divorce rendered in one state may be collaterally impeached in another by proof that the court that rendered the decree lacked jurisdiction the parties not having been domiciled therein , even though the record of proceedings in that court purports to show jurisdiction.
Cases Following Williams II. Sherrer , 59 which required Massachusetts, a state of domiciliary origin, to accord full faith and credit to a day Florida decree that the husband had contested. Because the findings of the requisite jurisdictional facts, unlike those in the second Williams case, were made in proceedings in which the defendant appeared and participated, the requirements of full faith and credit were held to bar him from collaterally attacking such findings in a suit instituted by him in his home state of Massachusetts, particularly in the absence of proof that the divorce decree was subject to such collateral attack in a Florida court.
Family Services
In Coe v. Coe , 60 embracing a similar set of facts, the Court applied like reasoning to reach a similar result. Massachusetts again was compelled to recognize the validity of a six-week Nevada decree obtained by a husband who had left Massachusetts after a court of that state had refused him a divorce and had granted his wife separate support. After finding that it had jurisdiction of the plaintiff, defendant, and the subject matter involved, the Nevada court granted the wife a divorce, which was valid, final, and not subject to collateral attack under Nevada law.
The husband married again, and on his return to Massachusetts, his ex-wife petitioned the Massachusetts court to adjudge him in contempt for failing to make payments for her separate support under the earlier Massachusetts decree. Appearing to review Williams II, and significant for the social consequences produced by the result it decreed, is Rice v. After having placed upon the first wife the burden of proving that the decedent had not acquired a bona fide domicile in Nevada, and after giving proper weight to the claims of power by the Nevada court, the Connecticut court concluded that the evidence sustained the contentions of the first wife, and in so doing, it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Sherrer v. Sherrer and Coe v. Coe , previously discussed, were declared not to be in point, because no personal service had been made upon the first wife, nor had she in any way participated in the Nevada proceedings. She was not, therefore, precluded from challenging the findings of the Nevada court that the decedent was, at the time of the divorce, domiciled in that state.
Claims for Alimony or Property in Forum State. Commonwealth , 63 decided on the same day as the second Williams case, the Supreme Court also sustained a Pennsylvania court in its refusal to recognize an ex parte Nevada decree on the ground that the husband who obtained it never acquired a bona fide domicile in the latter state. In this instance, the husband and wife had separated in Pennsylvania, where the wife was granted a support order; after two unsuccessful attempts to win a divorce in that state, the husband departed for Nevada.
Upon the receipt of a Nevada decree, the husband thereafter established a residence in Ohio and filed an action in Pennsylvania for total relief from the support order. If he is required to support his former wife, he is not made a bigamist and the offspring of his second marriage are not bastardized. Three years later, but on this occasion speaking for a majority of the Court, Justice Douglas reiterated these views in Estin v. Subsequently, in Nevada, her husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree, which made no provision for alimony. He ceased paying the New York-awarded alimony, and the wife sued him in New York.
Discuss Your Options with a Jacksonville Family Lawyer Today
The result in this situation is to make the divorce divisible—to give effect to the Nevada decree insofar as it affects marital status and to make it ineffective on the issue of alimony. In Simons v.
Estin 72 inapplicable. Decrees Awarding Alimony, Custody of Children. Thus, a judgment in State A for alimony in arrears and payable under a prior judgment of separation that is not by its terms conditional nor subject by the law of State A to modification or recall, and on which execution was directed to issue, is entitled to recognition in the forum state.
Although an obligation for accrued alimony could have been modified or set aside in State A prior to its merger in the judgment, such a judgment, by the law of State A, is not lacking in finality. An example of a custody case was one involving a Florida divorce decree that was granted ex parte to a wife who had left her husband in New York, where he was served by publication.
The decree carried with it an award of the exclusive custody of the child, whom the day before the husband had secretly seized and brought back to New York. There is therefore a failure of proof that the Florida decree received less credit in New York than it had in Florida.
Amended Marriage License
Status of the Law. Estin , 83 may have become the prevailing standard for determining the enforceability of foreign divorce decrees. If this is the case, then it may be that an ex parte divorce, founded upon acquisition of domicile by one spouse in the state that granted it, is effective to destroy the marital status of both parties in the state of domiciliary origin and probably in all other states.
The effect is to preclude subsequent prosecutions for bigamy but not to alter rights as to property, alimony, or custody of children in the state of domiciliary origin of a spouse who neither was served nor appeared personally. In any event, the accuracy of these conclusions has not been impaired by any decision of the Court since Thus, in Armstrong v.
Wilson, 76 U. Andrews, U. Dormitzer, U. Bell, U. Every divorce, wherever granted. Nowhere does it posit the powers of the states or the nation upon that amorphous, highly variable common law conception. Apart from the necessity for travel, [to effect a change of domicile, the latter] criterion comes down to a purely subjective mental state, related to remaining for a length of time never yet defined with clarity.
When what must be proved is a variable, the proof and the conclusion which follows upon it inevitably take on that character. The test is not different evidence. If the Court is today abandoning that principle. Such a consequence runs counter to the basic guarantees of our federal union. In a dissenting opinion filed in Sherrer v.
It is imperative that your final decree is worded in a way that protects your legal interest and will hold up if, for whatever reason, you need to modify or appeal the document at a later date. A final decree of divorce is archived in the vital records office of your courthouse, in the county in which you obtain your divorce.
In most situations, the court clerk or your attorney will mail you a copy of your final decree. Read the documents closely to make sure no mistakes were made, no language was changed and you are satisfied with the wording. If you find the language confusing, contact your attorney for an explanation.
Read the decree before it is sent to the courts for signing by the judge AND, read it again after it is signed and entered into the court records. Once you've signed your decree, changing it can be tricky. The only way to change it may be via the appeals process.
My Orange Clerk Home
If, however, you feel that you signed the decree under duress or felt threatened if you didn't sign, your attorney may be able to courts the courts for a new hearing based on your duress. MyDomaine uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience. By using MyDomaine, you accept our. Most divorce decrees will cover the following five issues:.