Title: Donnell v. Howell

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

125 S.E.2d 448 (1962)
257 N.C. 175
Viola Richards DONNELL and Husband, Floyd Donnell,
v.
William R. HOWELL.
No. 668.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 23, 1962.
*450 Barber & Gardner, by Carroll F. Gardner, Mount Airy, for petitioners appellants.
Blalock & Swanson, by C. Orville Light, Pilot Mountain, for respondent appellee.
PARKER, Justice.
Counsel for the petitioners and respondent stipulated before Judge Phillips that both the feme petitioner and the respondent were residents of Surry County, North Carolina, at the time feme petitioner instituted an action for divorce in the circuit court of Lee County, Alabama, in March 1961. The action was instituted on 3 March 1961. Feme petitioner in her bill of complaint in the divorce action alleged she "is a resident of the State of Alabama and has been as such time as required by law"a false allegation according to her stipulation in the instant case before Judge Phillips. Respondent in his answer filed in the divorce case admitted "the complainant is a bona fide resident citizen of Lee County, Alabama"a false admission according to his stipulation in the instant case before Judge Phillips. She alleged in her bill of complaint as the ground for divorce "that on to-wit: February 28, 1960 the Respondent voluntarily abandoned her bed and board without just cause or reason and has remained away from the bed and board of Complainant voluntarily and continuously since said date." A false allegation according to an unchallenged finding of fact that feme petitioner and respondent lived together as husband and wife until October 1960. The final decree of absolute divorce was entered by the Alabama court on 7 March 1961. Thereafter feme petitioner returned to North Carolina, and married Floyd Donnell in March 1961. She is now a resident of Surry County, North Carolina, and respondent a resident of Stanly County, North Carolina.
The first question for decision is: Did the Alabama court under the laws of the State of Alabama have jurisdiction over the marital status of the parties, when neither was domiciled in Alabama, and when both perpetrated a fraud on that court by falsely representing to it in the bill of complaint *451 and answer that feme petitioner "was a resident of the State of Alabama and has been as such time as required by law," when in truth and in fact according to their stipulation before Judge Phillips both feme petitioner and respondent were residents of Surry County, North Carolina, at the time feme petitioner instituted the action for divorce in the Alabama court.
Title 34, section 27, Code of Alabama 1940, 1955 Cumulative Pocket Part, reads:
Title 34, section 29, Code of Alabama 1940, 1955 Cumulative Pocket Part, reads:
The Supreme Court of Alabama said in Gee v. Gee, 252 Ala. 103, 39 So. 2d 406, Rehearing Denied 31 March 1949: "It is firmly established by our decisions that residence in our divorce statutes means domicile."
In Jennings v. Jennings, 251 Ala. 73, 36 So. 2d 236, 3 A.L.R.2d 662, both husband and wife resided in South Carolina. The wife sued in Alabama, and in her bill of complaint alleged she was a resident of South Carolina. The husband appeared and answered, admitting he was a resident of South Carolina and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Alabama court. When the case came on for hearing on the merits, the trial judge dismissed the bill on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed. In its opinion it quoted Title 34, section 29, Code of Alabama 1940, which we have quoted above, and stated: "This case involves the power of the legislature to authorize a decree of divorce in this state when the parties are personally before the court, but reside in another state." In its opinion the Alabama Supreme Court said:
In Hartigan v. Hartigan, 272 Ala. 67, 128 So. 2d 725, filed 30 March 1961, Helen Hartigan filed a bill for divorce in the circuit court charging her husband, John Hartigan, with voluntary abandonment. She alleged in the bill she was a bona fide resident of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, and had been for more than one year next preceding the filing of the bill, and that respondent was a resident of the same county. Respondent filed an answer and waiver in which he admitted the jurisdictional facts, but denied the other material allegations of complainant, and agreed that the case "may be carried forward to its final determination and decree of divorce issued without other notice to respondent." He signed the answer and waiver in the presence of a witness. The divorce decree incorporated a property settlement and payment of alimony by respondent to complainant, based upon an agreement between them purporting to have been signed by both parties and filed with the bill and answer. On 17 June 1960 John Hartigan filed a petition in the circuit court of Jefferson County praying for a modification of the 1954 divorce decree so as to eliminate the requirement that he pay Mrs. Hartigan alimony of $60 per week, due to certain financial grounds as changed circumstances. On 7 and 8 July 1960 Mrs. Hartigan filed an answer asking enforcement of the decree, and a petition for citation of contempt on the ground he was delinquent on his alimony payments. The proceeding was heard before Judge Bailes. In the hearing before Judge Bailes the following facts were established without objection: *453 Mrs.Hartigan testified that she had never resided in Alabama and had never been in Alabama before she instituted her divorce action there, and that John Hartigan had never lived in Alabama, that her trip to Alabama had been agreed upon between her and her husband in New York, and that she came to Alabama to get the divorce. Judge Bailes, on his own motion, entered a decree setting aside the 1954 final decree of divorce on the ground that it was procured by fraud on the court, was illegal, null and void and dismissed the petition of both parties. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed. In its opinion it said:
The Court further said:
In Sapos v. Plame, 272 Ala. 76, 128 So. 2d 524, 30 March 1961, the Court held that the subsequent marriage of the wife did not in and of itself show that the husband is estopped from attacking the divorce decree by a bill of review to set it aside for fraud.
It seems to be indubitable from the stipulation of the parties before Judge Phillips that both the feme petitioner and respondent were residents of Surry County, North Carolina, at the time feme petitioner initiated an action for divorce in a circuit court of the State of Alabama on 3 March 1961, and that the Alabama court, if presented with such stipulation, would determine that the final divorce decree rendered feme petitioner from respondent in that court on 7 March 1961 was void for want of jurisdiction. Certainly, it is void according to the law in this State. Martin v. Martin, 253 N.C. 704, 118 S.E.2d 29.
While a void divorce decree cannot be legalized by act of the parties, Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Vol. 3, 1925, section 1438, is respondent by filing an answer and waiver, but not appearing in person or by counsel, in the divorce suit in the Alabama court estopped to deny the final divorce decree rendered therein, as alleged by feme petitioner in her reply? Feme petitioner by fraud invoked the jurisdiction and power of the Alabama court for the purpose of securing important rights *455 from respondent by its divorce decree, and having obtained by fraud a final divorce decree she seeks to uphold the divorce decree and enjoy its fruits by having a partition sale of all real property conveyed to her and respondent as tenants by entirety, on the ground that by reason of the Alabama divorce she and respondent hold title to this property as tenants in common. There is no evidence children have been born from the second marriage of feme petitioner to Floyd Donnell.
It seems clear that there is no true estoppel here. Feme petitioner knew all the material facts, she knew she and respondent were not residents of Alabama, but were residents of Surry County, North Carolina, at the time she instituted her divorce action and four days later procured there a final decree of divorce, she was not misled or deceived, and she did not act to her detriment in reliance on any representation or deed of respondent when she got what she apparently wanteda new husband the same month she procured her decree of final divorce. Smith v. Smith, 72 Ohio App. 203, 50 N.E.2d 889, 27 Ohio Ops. 79; Garman v. Garman, 70 App.D.C. 4, 102 F.2d 272, 122 A.L.R. 1317; Lynn v. Lynn, 302 N.Y. 193, 97 N.E.2d 748, 28 A.L.R.2d 1335, cert. denied 342 U.S. 849, 72 S. Ct. 72, 96 L. Ed. 640; Cook v. Cook, 116 Vt. 374, 76 A.2d 593. Respondent joined with her in perpetrating a fraud on the Alabama court, but it would seem he has enjoyed no fruits by virtue of the divorce decree; he has not remarried. He assails the validity of the Alabama divorce only when feme petitioner brings him into the North Carolina court where he resists her efforts to enjoy the fruits of an Alabama divorce, which she obtained by a fraud perpetrated on the Alabama court.
In Levine v. Levine, 262 Ala. 491, 80 So. 2d 235, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that where a wife received $20,000 by terms of settlement agreement, which was made a part of and merged with divorce decree, and she did not tender to her husband any portion of the sum she received, nor had she paid any portion of such money into court or offered to do so, her retention of monetary benefits of divorce decree, while seeking to have decree nullified on ground court did not have jurisdiction, precluded her from equitable relief she sought. The Court said:
See also Fairclough v. St. Amand, 217 Ala. 19, 114 So. 472, and the comment on that case and the Levine case in Hartigan v. Hartigan, supra.
"Although the parties are shown to have been in pari delicto, the court will grant relief to one of them if its forbearance will be productive of an offense against public morals or good conscience." 19 Am.Jur., Equity, p. 332; Smith v. Smith, supra; 17 Am.Jur., Divorce and Separation, sec. 541; Hogan v. Hogan, 320 Mass. 658, 70 N.E.2d 821.
If a court should forbear to grant relief to respondent here in the face of their stipulation before Judge Phillips to the effect that the final divorce decree feme petitioner obtained from the Alabama court was secured by the perpetration of a fraud upon the Alabama court, it would be an offense against public morals and good conscience, a reflection upon the integrity of the court, and productive of perjury. "It is a matter of common knowledge that every year thousands of unhappily married persons, unable to obtain divorces at home, visit one or another of these five states *456 in search of marital freedom. It is equally well known that the need for proof of domicile leads to perjury in a vast number of instances." Wheat v. Wheat, 229 Ark. 842, 318 S.W.2d 793. Respondent is not estopped to challenge the validity of the final divorce decree rendered by the Alabama court for lack of jurisdiction, and it would seem that the Alabama Supreme Court under its decisions would so hold under the facts here, as we do in the present case.
We now come to the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution, Art. 4, section 1. This clause is now construed to mean that a foreign decree of divorce rendered in a state in which neither of the parties had a bona fide domicile is not required to be recognized in another state under the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution, and that the court of another state is free to go behind the findings of the foreign divorce court as to the jurisdictional fact of domicile in the divorce forum, and find for itself, contrary to the finding of the foreign divorce court, that no domicile in fact existed in the foreign state to entitle the foreign decree to extraterritorial recognition, Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S. Ct. 1092, 89 L. Ed. 1577, 157 A.L.R. 1366 (reh. den. 325 U.S. 895, 65 S. Ct. 1560, 89 L.Ed. 2006); Esenwein v. Pennsylvania, 325 U.S. 279, 65 S. Ct. 1118, 89 L. Ed. 1608, 157 A.L.R. 1396, with an exception set forth in Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 68 S. Ct. 1087, 92 L. Ed. 1429, 1 A.L.R.2d 1355, and Coe v. Coe, 334 U.S. 378, 68 S. Ct. 1094, 92 L. Ed. 1451, 1 A.L.R.2d 1376. In both the Sherrer and Coe cases, although the service was constructive (by mail), there was a personal appearance by the defendants in the foreign divorce forum and they were represented by counsel at the hearingin the Sherrer case, a denial in the answer of the allegations of residence in the plaintiff's complaint, without contest of the same on trial, and in the Coe case, an express admission as true, in the answer, of the allegations of residence in the plaintiff's complaint, without contest of the same at trial. Opportunity was thus present, unlike in the Williams and Esenwein cases, for them to raise the issue of lack of jurisdictional requirement of domicile, although they did not in fact avail themselves of that opportunity at the trial. The Court held this was sufficient to render res judicata and conclusive the finding of the divorce court as to jurisdictional fact of domicile within the state, which is binding upon the courts of other states in which the decree is attacked on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the matrimonial res or of lack of domicile in the divorce forum.
The Sherrer and Coe decisions do not validate or require extraterritorial recognition of foreign divorces under all circumstances. The fundamental requirement that domicile within the territorial bounds of the divorce court of at least one of the parties to the divorce suit is of the very essence and prerequisite of jurisdiction over the matrimonial res is not dispensed withon the contrary it has been reaffirmed in those cases. It seems certain that the essential prerequisite is here to stay, even if the Court in the future should go beyond the limits fixed in the Sherrer and Coe cases. See Annotation 1 A.L.R. 2d 1385-1412-Recognition as to marital status of foreign divorce decree attacked on ground of lack of domicile, since Williams decision, and particularly Article III, section 8Effect of Sherrer and Coe cases.
In Staedler v. Staedler, 6 N.J. 380, 78 A.2d 896, 28 A.L.R.2d 1291, the New Jersey Supreme Court said:
The Sherrer and Coe cases are not applicable here, because respondent was not personally present at, and did not participate by himself or an attorney, in the trial in the Alabama court, when that court rendered its final decree of divorce in favor of feme petitioner. Under the stipulated fact by the parties here to the effect that they perpetrated a gross fraud upon the Alabama court in representing that she was a resident of Alabama when she and respondent were residents of Surry County, North Carolina, the divorce decree rendered by the Alabama court is null and void under the laws and decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama for lack of jurisdiction and is not entitled to full faith and credit under the provisions of the federal constitution in the courts of North Carolina.
In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743, 47 S.E.2d 32, relied on by plaintiff is clearly distinguishable. In that case no gross fraud was perpetrated on the court in Florida, as was done on the Alabama court by stipulation of the parties here.
The judgment of the able and experienced trial judge is correct and is affirmed, although his conclusion of law upon which he based it is on the wrong ground. He should have based his judgment upon a conclusion of law that the final divorce decree rendered by the Alabama court was null and void for lack of jurisdiction under the laws of the State of Alabama by reason of the stipulation the parties made before him to the effect feme petitioner and the respondent were residents of Surry County, North Carolina, when she instituted the divorce action in the circuit court in Alabama and when four days later that court entered its decree of final divorce, and that the parties by such stipulation admitted they perpetrated a gross fraud upon the Alabama court.
Affirmed.