The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-05-08
NEVADA ALIMONY
LAW UPSET HERE
Court Rcvcrsps Ruling in Re-
gard to Division Of Com
munity Property.
TIEDEMANN CASE ENDED

The Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court has reversed n decision or the
lower court in a suit Of Mrs. Gertrude
Eleanor Tiedemann against Rudolph f.
Tiedemann. member OF Theodore Ticde-
mann & Sons. woollen goods. 35l Fourth
avenue. which held that Tiedemann must
account to his former wife for all the
property he had acquired since their
marriage, and turn over half this prop
erty as one NJ the provisions or Mrs.
Tiedemann's divorce decree obtained
April 10. 1914.
Tiedemann attempted 10 defeat the
suit brought by his wife ia Nevada on
the ground that she was a resident OF
Connecticut. saying sh" mad gone L"
the western state for the sole purpose
OF divorcing him. and admitted II. lie
q rried the case to the supreme Court
Of Nevada on the question of jurisdic-
ton, but the highest court held that the
Nevada courts had acquired jurisdiction.
Tiedemann then dropped out Of the case,
and when the action was tried Mrs.
Tiedemann's attorneys applied under the
Nevada law for a decree requiring. MN
TO turn over to her half the Property
he acquired after his marriage. as part
OF her alimony in addition 10 paying a
monthly sum.
Mrs. Tiedemann offered evidence To the
cYec, that the defendant had a third IN
,erest in the firm of Theodore Ticd"mann
a. Sons. valued at more than $l,uo"'ooV'
owned real estate in Greenwich, conn"
! worth stO. 600, and was worth SiOo,"oo
in his own right. Til" Nevada court
eatered a decree requiring a diNis'oh OF
community property ana sou" A month
| aiimony for Mrs. T~iedemann aud $500 a
| month for the support ~ their daughter
Tiedemann refused to comply win
the decree Of the Nevada court ana the
plaintiff SUED in New work. to enforce All
the terms of the decree. Sne got a
Judgment to that erect IN the supreme
Court and a referee was appointed 10
take the accounting of the value OF me
&C immunity property which Iirdtlnahh
was required to divide.
The announcement ~ the time that the
community property laws Of various
western States could u" enforced IN
. New York came as something OF a sno'h
To business men here vino had been III
vorced in Nevada and who realized
that II the decision Of the lower court
were upheld their former wives might
make trouble.
In his appeal from the supreme court
decision Tiedemann made his fight "n
the division of property provision IN MS
| former wife's decree. w.. contend.d that
no evidence. had been introduced IN the
Nevada trial that there vas any com
muntty property and that as lie didn't
appear AT the trial MS wife made him
on, to he as rich as she chose. He con-
tended further that The courts Of New
York had no power to enforce the com
munity property law of Nevada.
TIE Appellate Dvlsion IN its decision
utholds the lower court in enforcing the
alimony payments monthly, hut refuses
to permit the community uf property re-
uuirement 10 become effective here. jus
,ice l.auShl,n. writing the opinion. said
I'VE ar. If Tn. opinion that the de
cree in So FAR as Il relates I communiiy
property t. not cnfnrciblc IN this iuris-
dic,ion. Full faith and credit are given
to- the Nevada decree by accepting q
conclusive adjud cation OF the dls>"lu'
ton of tine marriage aud Of the right OF
the plaintiff 10 recover alimnuN for IN,
support Of her child and for Cnluss'
fees hut IL the courts uf this Stat.
should requir. tn. defendant to account
for any community property there may
be here, tnat would h" enforcing tn,
Nevada decree and the incidental ~
vision thereof based upuu The Statut.
law Of thai state, which has 80 extra
territorial effect. for neither the Fedora
Constitution nor Any law Of tnl- stat,
entities the plaiutiti To- 'hH' relief here"