The court reversed the decrees denying the wife's petitions for contempt and to modify the support decree and allowing the husband's petition to revoke the original support decree. The court ordered the cases to stand for hearing.
The court reversed the decrees denying the wife's petitions for contempt and to modify the support decree and allowing the husband's petition to revoke the original support decree. The court ordered the cases to stand for hearing.
ISSUES:
The issue here is whether Plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence to impeach a foreign divorce decree for lack of jurisdiction..
DISCUSSION:
The full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution did not preclude a court of this Commonwealth from hearing evidence to impeach, for lack of jurisdiction, a decree of divorce by a court of another State. The judge erred in denying the petitioner the right to introduce evidence to impeach the Nevada judgment. It is well settled that a bona fide residence on the part of at least one of the parties is essential to the validity of a decree of divorce. It is competent for the courts of other States to inquire into the validity of a divorce so far, at least, as its validity depends upon the jurisdiction of the State where the divorce was granted, and that a domicile by one of the parties in the State in which the divorce was granted is essential to jurisdiction. Wherea divorce in a foreign jurisdiction has been obtained in violation of this statute, one who participates in it is not precluded from questioning it in the courts of the Commonwealth. It is important to know whether the Nevada court had jurisdiction and whether the statute (G.L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 208, § 39) had been violated. The answers to these questions cannot be ascertained from the record because the petitioner was denied the right to introduce evidence with respect to them.
It follows that the decrees appealed from are reversed and the cases are to stand for hearing in conformity with this opinion.
JUDGMENT:
The court reversed the decrees denying the wife's petitions for contempt and to modify the support decree and allowing the husband's petition to revoke the original support decree. The court ordered the cases to stand for hearing.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Virginia Mediation Settlement Agreement Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married on October 13, 1995, and that they separated on or about February 27, 1997. The parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement on January 14, 1998, and upon due notice to wife, depositions were taken of husband and his corroborating witness on April 16, 1998. Plaintiff wife filed for divorce from defendant husband.
Virginia Mediation Separation Marital Dissolution Lawyers Attorneys
Husband, an active member of the United States Navy, executed, after separation from his wife, a survivor's benefit plan election certificate, providing a deferred annuity for wife and children. The husband had three options, no participation for the wife, an immediate annuity, or a deferred annuity.
New York Divorce Jurisdiction Equitable Distribution Spousal Support Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married in Ecuador in 1963. They have six emancipated children. Neither of the parties speaks or reads English with any degree of facility. Throughout their marriage, plaintiff-husband supported his wife and children. He works as a building porter, and his gross weekly salary as of December 1995 was $ 538.74. Plaintiff is also a member of a union that provided him with an attorney in this divorce proceeding.
