While both spouses were domiciled in New York, a wife obtained a
decree of separation and alimony there. Later, the husband obtained
a Nevada divorce in a proceeding in which the wife was notified
constructively and entered no appearance. He stopped paying
alimony, and the wife sued in New York for the amount in arrears.
The husband appeared and defended on the ground of the Nevada
divorce. The New York court granted the wife judgment for the
arrears of alimony. The highest court of New York affirmed.
Held: the New York judgment did not deny full faith and
credit to the Nevada decree, since Nevada had no power to
adjudicate the wife's rights in the New York decree of alimony.
See Estin v. Estin, ante, p.
334 U. S. 541. Pp.
334 U. S.
556-557.
297 N.Y. 530, 74 N.E.2d 468, affirmed.
Notwithstanding a divorce obtained by a husband in Nevada, a New
York court gave the wife a judgment for arrears of alimony awarded
under an earlier decree granted while both spouses were domiciled
in New York. The Appellate Division affirmed. 271 N.Y. App.Div.
872, 66 N.Y.S.2d 798. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 297 N.Y. 530,
74 N.E.2d 468. This Court granted certiorari. 332 U.S. 829.
Affirmed, p.
334 U. S.
557.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to
Estin v. Estin, ante, p.
334 U. S. 541,
also here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Page 334 U. S. 556
The parties were married in New York in 1933, and lived together
until their separation in 1935. In 1940, respondent obtained a
decree of separation in New York on grounds of abandonment.
Petitioner appeared in the action, and respondent was awarded $60 a
week alimony for the support of herself and their only child, whose
custody she was given.
Petitioner thereafter went to Nevada, where he continues to
reside. He instituted divorce proceedings in that state in the fall
of 1944. Constructive service was made on respondent, who made no
appearance in the Nevada proceedings. While they were pending,
respondent obtained an order in New York purporting to enjoin
petitioner from seeking a divorce and from remarrying. Petitioner
was neither served with process in New York nor entered an
appearance in the latter proceeding. The Nevada court, with
knowledge of the injunction and the New York judgment for alimony,
awarded petitioner an absolute divorce on grounds of three
consecutive years of separation without cohabitation. The judgment
made no provision for alimony. It did provide that petitioner was
to support, maintain and educate the child, whose custody it
purported to grant him, and as to which jurisdiction was reserved.
Petitioner thereafter tendered $50 a month for the support of the
child, but ceased making payments under the New York decree.
Respondent thereupon brought suit on the New York judgment in a
federal district court in Nevada. Without waiting the outcome of
that litigation, she obtained a judgment in New York for the amount
of the arrears, petitioner appearing and unsuccessfully pleading
his Nevada divorce as a defense. The judgment was affirmed by the
Appellate Division, two judges dissenting. 271 App.Div. 872, 66
N.Y.S.2d 798. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, but
stating in its remittitur that its action was
Page 334 U. S. 557
based upon
Estin v. Estin, 296 N.Y. 308, 73 N.E.2d 113.
Respondent does not attack the
bona fides of petitioner's
Nevada domicile.
For the reasons stated in
Estin v. Estin, supra, we
hold that Nevada had no power to adjudicate respondent's rights in
the New York judgment, and thus New York was not required to bow to
that provision of the Nevada decree. It is therefore unnecessary to
pass upon New York's attempt to enjoin petitioner from securing a
divorce or to reach the question whether the New York judgment was
entitled to full faith and credit in the Nevada proceedings. No
issue as to the custody of the child was raised either in the court
below or in this Court. The judgment is
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER dissents for the reasons stated in his
dissenting opinion in
Estin v. Estin, ante, p.
334 U. S.
549.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON dissents for the reasons set forth in his
opinion in
Estin v. Estin, ante, p.
334 U. S.
553.
