Source: https://casetext.com/case/solomon-v-solomon-2
Timestamp: 2019-02-20 11:49:51
Document Index: 759197844

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2043', '§ 2043', '§ 1332', '§ 11', '§ 25', '§ 41', '§ 1332', '§ 16', '§ 1432', '§ 550', '§ 1725', '§ 1251', '§ 11', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 1332', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2']

Solomon v. Solomon, 516 F.2d 1018 | Casetext
516 F.2d 1018 (3d Cir. 1975)
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses0lockCiting BriefsBriefs1lockCiting CasesCiting Cases76
Solomonv.Solomon
United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMay 2, 1975
…The parties to this action, William B. Allen (William) and Christa H. Allen (Christa) are husband and wife.…
…1973), pp. 1189-92. The leading Third Circuit case upon the subject is Solomon v. Solomon, 516 F.2d 1018…
holding that an issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be adjudicated by a motion to dismiss rather than a motion for summary judgment
Summary of this case from Tuli v. Alstom Grid Inc.
recognizing the state&apos;s vital interest in the domestic relations arena
Arthur L. Jenkins, Jr., Smith, Aker, Grossman, Hollinger Jenkins, Norristown, Pa., for appellants.
Martin J. Cunningham, Jr., Henderson, Wetherill, O'Hey Horsey, Norristown, Pa., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Lynne E. Solomon ("plaintiff") and John F. Solomon, Jr. ("defendant") were married on August 16, 1958. Three children were born of this union. Marital difficulties arose and consequently, on November 22, 1968, husband and wife signed a separation agreement providing, inter alia, that the wife have custody of the children, that the husband pay a stipulated weekly amount for child support, and that — subject to certain restrictions — the husband be granted visitation rights. Paragraph 2(g) of the agreement provided in part:
". . . in the event that the parties cannot resolve the issue of Husband's future visitation rights between themselves, they hereby agree to submit any dispute for resolution in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Both parties herewith agree to submit voluntarily to the jurisdiction of said Court in any such proceedings." (Emphasis added.)
"The court there reviewed the earlier Pennsylvania decisions and announced the modern rule which is to prevail in Pennsylvania. The modern and correct rule is that, while private parties may not by contract prevent a court from asserting its jurisdiction or change the rules of venue, nevertheless, a court in which venue is proper and which has jurisdiction should decline to proceed with the cause when the parties have freely agreed that litigation shall be conducted in another forum and where such agreement is not unreasonable at the time of litigation. Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl Co., Inc., 418 Pa. 122, 133, 209 A.2d 810, 816 (1965). . ..
Federal district courts sitting in Pennsylvania have held that Pennsylvania would find consent to be a basis for jurisdiction. See AAM-CO Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Hagenbarth, 296 F. Supp. 1142, 1143 (E.D.Pa. 1968); Spatz v. Nascone, 364 F. Supp. 967, 978-81 (W.D.Pa. 1973).
Moreover, the parties agreed in Paragraph 17 to a mechanism for the resolution of other disputes:
"The parties agree to abide by the decision thus reached . . . ."
The agreement was executed in Pennsylvania, where both parties were then domiciled, and, pursuant to Paragraph 27, was to be construed in accordance with the laws of Pennsylvania.
The tranquility of separation was short-lived. On March 14, 1969, defendant brought a habeas corpus action in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, contending that his visitation rights had been infringed. A hearing was held on April 3, 1969, and plaintiff submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Montgomery County Court. By court order of May 19, 1969, defendant was granted specified visitation rights and plaintiff was required to post a $5,000.00 bond upon condition that she not remove the children from the court's jurisdiction without express written approval of the court. The bond was finally posted on June 13, 1969, after defendant had petitioned for a contempt citation against plaintiff. While the case was pending, plaintiff and the children moved to Florida in violation of the court's order. Subsequently, on November 10, 1969, plaintiff was declared in contempt, judgment on the bond was granted, and a bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest, which remains outstanding, was issued. The above-mentioned (1) May 19, 1969, state court order recited that ". . . the mother, Lynne E. Solomon, stated in Court on April 13, 1969, that she submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania . . ." (37a), and (2) November 10, 1969, state court order recited that ". . . Lynne E. Solomon having stated at the initial hearing on June 13, 1969, and again on August 8, 1969, and again on August 11, 1969, that she would abide by the jurisdiction of the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Court . . ." (40a). Defendant concedes non-payment of support after November 1969, but contends that he did so only after plaintiff had materially breached the separation agreement by denying his visitation rights.
Plaintiff had earlier sought revision of the visitation rights. This petition was dismissed on October 6, 1969, following the plaintiff's move to Florida.
No appeal was taken from these orders.
This November 10, 1969, state court order contains this language, inter alia (39a 40a):
After plaintiff secured residence in Florida, defendant obtained a divorce decree and remarried. In August 1972, plaintiff and the children moved from Florida to Newark, Delaware. On December 13, 1973, plaintiff filed suit, based upon diversity of citizenship, in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking money damages for non-support, specific enforcement of the separation agreement, and appropriate equitable relief. This suit was instituted by plaintiff in her representative capacity as parent and natural guardian of the children and in her own right. Defendant submitted alternative motions for summary judgment, dismissal, or a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the litigation in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a cause of action involving "domestic relations." This appeal followed.
The record does not indicate when the divorce was granted. More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the divorce decree incorporated any portion of the separation agreement. Plaintiff's suit is grounded upon the contractual arrangement.
It should be noted that plaintiff had previously instituted two nonsupport proceedings in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The first, filed March 5, 1970, while plaintiff was residing in Florida, was dismissed because plaintiff was in contempt of court. The second, filed December 3, 1972, after plaintiff moved to Delaware, was continued generally until such time as plaintiff purged herself of contempt. These decisions demonstrate — contrary to the suggestion of the dissenting opinion — that the state court was not prepared to treat the support and visitation actions as wholly distinguishable. Both actions were based upon the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. 62 P.S. § 2043.1 et seq. We are not called upon to decide whether in these suits, under 62 P.S. § 2043.4, the "duty of support imposed or impossible by law" consisted of the separation agreement, a support obligation under Pennsylvania law and independent of the agreement, or both. Plaintiff was free to appeal the March 5, 1970, dismissal, as well as the finding of contempt, to the Pennsylvania appellate courts.
Specifically, the district court concluded (48a): ". . . the present case involves domestic relations' and thus is a matter which has been traditionally left by the federal courts to the purview of the state courts."
Traditionally, the federal courts have evinced great reluctance to entertain cases involving domestic relations. This doctrine is not premised upon explicit statutory language limiting the jurisdictional authority of federal courts. Indeed, the jurisdictional statute utilized by plaintiff to bring suit grants original jurisdiction to federal district courts "in all civil actions" where there is jurisdictional amount and diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Rather, the jurisdictional exception for domestic relations has been judicially carved, beginning with and extending through a series of dicta in decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
The original diversity statute of 1789 specified "all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity . . . ." Act of September 24, 1789, § 11, 1 Stat. 73, 78. Various commentators have explained that, initially, the refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction was grounded at least in part upon the rationale that, since domestic relations cases were historically heard in ecclesiastical courts, they did not come within the compass of this provision. See, e. g., Wright, Federal Courts, 2d ed. § 25 at p. 84. This phraseology was maintained ( 28 U.S.C. § 41(1), 1940 ed.) until 1948, when Congress revised Title 28 of the United States Code, and the phrase "all civil actions" was substituted. Act of June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 930. The Revisor's Notes to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 suggest that the sole purpose of the amendment was to produce conformity with the language of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The legislative history of the 1948 amendment in no way suggests that this particular change was motivated by a desire to expand or contract the jurisdictional scope of the federal courts. Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797, at 801 (E.D.N.Y. 1968).
There is no dispute as to either jurisdictional amount or diversity of citizenship in this case.
"Our first remark is — and we wish it to be remembered — that this is not a suit asking the court for the allowance of alimony. That has been done by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court in Wisconsin was asked to interfere to prevent that decree from being defeated by fraud.
"It may therefore be assumed as indubitable that the Circuit Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction, either of suits for divorce, or of claims for alimony, whether made in a suit for divorce, or by an original proceeding in equity, before a decree for such alimony in a state court. Within the States of the Union, the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the State, and not to the laws of the United States. In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593, 594 [10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500, 503]."
The territorial jurisdiction exception to the broad prohibition against domestic relations suits in federal courts arose again in De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed. 765 (1906). In that case, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands reversed a divorce decree and alimony and allowance awards granted by the trial court. Citing Simms, the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal:
"While, as indicated in Simms v. Simms, the decree for alimony, although in one sense an incident to the suit for divorce, is a distinct and final judgment for a sum of money, and is therefore a good ground for an appeal from that part of the decree, yet, where the appeal is from the whole decree (as in this case), or even from a part of the decree, and the denial of alimony or separation of the conjugal property depends upon the evidence which bears upon the right to a divorce, we cannot determine that question without passing upon the sufficiency of the testimony authorizing or refusing the divorce. An appeal from the decree for alimony or other property right would be of no value whatever unless the facts connected with the allowance or refusal of such right were open to review in the appellate court. Although an appeal from a part of a decree does not bring up the part not appealed from, yet, if the whole decree, must be reviewed in order to decide the appeal, such an appeal brings up the entire record. . . The case is even stronger where the appeal is taken from the whole decree." (Citations omitted.)
A unanimous court reaffirmed the primacy of state courts in domestic relations suits in a non-diversity setting in Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930). Relator, Vice-Consul of Roumania, had married a resident of Ohio who later sued him for divorce and alimony in the State courts of Ohio. The Ohio state trial court granted temporary alimony over relator's objection that it lacked jurisdiction. His petition for writ of prohibition was denied by the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider relator's argument that, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Explaining the earlier domestic relations cases and noting that the parties' suit for divorce in a federal district court had been dismissed earlier, Justice Holmes' opinion, affirming the Ohio courts, reasoned:
"The words quoted from the Constitution do not of themselves and without more exclude the jurisdiction of the State. . . . The statutes do not purport to exclude the State Courts from jurisdiction except where they grant it to the Courts of the United States. Therefore they do not affect the present case if it be true as has been unquestioned for three-quarters of a century that the Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over divorce. If when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States, there is no difficulty in construing the instrument accordingly and not much in dealing with the statutes."
280 U.S. at 383-84, 50 S.Ct. at 155.
Our understanding of these cases requires us to conclude that the district court properly refused to exercise jurisdiction over the instant case. The import of the Supreme Court's language in these cases is that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction in domestic relations suits except where necessary to the effectuation of prior state court judgments involving the same matters or where jurisdiction lies by dint of the participation and review of territorial courts. The case at bar cannot be categorized into either narrow exception. In fact, into either narrow exception. In fact, assumption of jurisdiction in this case would, as the district court recognized, have precisely the opposite effect since it would undermine and derogate both the state court's contempt citation against plaintiff and its decision to continue generally her support action until such time as plaintiff purged herself of contempt.
Barber v. Barber, supra. See, e. g., Cain v. King, 313 F. Supp. 10, 16 (E.D.La. 1970) (merger of separation agreement into divorce decree). The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution) requires that the domestic relations decrees of the courts of one state be given proper recognition in other states. See Sutton v. Leib, 342 U.S. 402, 72 S.Ct. 398, 96 L.Ed. 448 (1952); Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945); Williams v. North Carolina. 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279 (1942). In the second Williams case, the Court said at 237 of 325 U.S. at 1098 of 65 S.Ct.: ". . . in [the] federal system . . . [the] regulation of domestic relations has been left with the States and not given to the national authority. . . ."
De La Rama v. De La Rama, supra; Simms v. Simms, supra.
We reiterate that plaintiff did not appeal either of these decisions in the state courts of Pennsylvania.
Nor do we accept plaintiff's contention that a divorce decree without more removes this case from the arena of domestic relations and permits the intervention of federal courts to adjudicate issues unaffected by that decree. At the core of both parties' contentions is the parent-child relationship. The divorce decree in this case did not sever that relationship. There is no evidence that it either incorporated the terms of the separation agreement or merged with it. The state courts have not rendered any judgment on support payments which requires our invocation of jurisdiction to assure its efficacy. In Albanese v. Richter, 161 F.2d 688, 689 (3d Cir. 1947), we disclaimed jurisdiction over the suit of an illegitimate child against his putative father for support and education. That case made clear the fact that the classification of a suit as one in domestic relations does not depend upon the existence, and impliedly the continuation, of a marriage relationship.
We cannot agree with any language in Richie v. Richie, 186 F. Supp. 592, 594 (E.D.N.Y. 1960), and Manary v. Manary, 151 F. Supp. 446, 447, 449 (N.D.Cal. 1957), which implies that a divorce decree ipso facto terminates domestic relations and grants jurisdiction to federal courts on any issue arising from the marital relationship. In our view, the district court's assertion of jurisdiction in Richie was amply warranted by the fact that plaintiff's action sought to recover upon a valid state judgment in Washington based upon an earlier divorce decree, granted in Texas, which incorporated a separation agreement. Conversely, the dismissal of the action in Manary was proper since the plaintiff, after the decree of divorce, sought to overturn portions of the property settlement incorporated into that decree.
"Traditionally, it has been the policy of federal courts to avoid assumption of jurisdiction in this species of litigation. `The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of United States.' In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594, 10 S.Ct. 850, 853, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890). Indeed, this court has explicitly held there is no federal diversity jurisdiction in a domestic relations case involving a child. Albanese v. Richter, 161 F.2d 688 (3d Cir. 1947)."
While separation or property agreements between spouses will normally be treated as enforceable contracts, it is generally recognized that these agreements will not be enforced if they encourage divorce. See, e. g., Miller v. Miller, 384 Pa. 414, 131 A. 236 (1925). See generally Clark, Domestic Relations, § 16.1 at p. 521. We refuse to provide that incentive, however slight, by a ruling the effect of which is incongruous with the purposes of and limitations on a separation agreement.
The domestic relations exception to the jurisdictional powers of federal courts represents an historically engrained limitation upon us. It is true that the rationale upon which it is premised has shifted from conceptions regarding the powers of ancient ecclesiastical courts, see note 8, supra, the non-diversity of married couples, and the lack of monetary value of a divorce, see De La Rama, supra, to the modern view that state courts have historically decided these matters and have developed both a well-known expertise in these cases and a strong interest in disposing of them. See C. Wright, Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts 84 (2d ed. 1970). In Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim Ballon v. Rosenstiel, 490 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1973), Judge Friendly used this language at pages 514 and 515, after quoting from Barber v. Barber, supra, the wording set forth above at page 1022 of this opinion:
"Mr. Justice Holmes . . . continued [280 U.S.] at 383-384, 50 S.Ct. at 155:
"We have no disposition to question that conclusion, whether the history was right or not, cf. Spindel v. Spindel, supra, 283 F. Supp. at 802-803. More than a century has elapsed since the Barber dictum without any intimation of Congressional dissatisfaction. It is beyond the realm of reasonable belief that, in these days of congested dockets, Congress would wish the federal courts to seek to regain territory, even if the cession of 1859 was unjustified. Whatever Article III may or may not permit, we thus accept the Barber dictum as a correct interpretation of the Congressional grant.
Concededly, this judge-made doctrine is not without its critics. But until such time as either Congress or the Supreme Court sees fit to amend or emasculate this exception, we are bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court's language and the weight of federal authority to apply it to the broad area of domestic relations. Its application in this case preserves the sanctity of state court judgments and protects against confusing and complicated piecemeal litigation. Although plaintiff repeatedly stated in open court that she "submitted to the jurisdiction of the" state court, as noted at page 1020 above, she seeks to have the federal court nullify its rulings in this action.
See, e. g., Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797 (E.D.N.Y. 1968). See generally Vestal Foster, Implied Limitations on the Diversity Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, 41 Minn.L.Rev. 1, at 25 (1956). It is noteworthy, however, that when the Supreme Court created or enforced even the two narrow exceptions to the rule against federal jurisdiction in domestic relations cases, the majority of the Court encountered stiff opposition from justices who believed that there was no jurisdiction in the federal courts over these cases. De La Rama v. De La Rama, supra; Barber v. Barber, supra. Unanimity occurred when the Court refused jurisdiction. Ohio ex rel. popovici v. Agler, supra.
See, e. g., Hernstadt v. Hernstadt, 373 F.2d 316, 317-18 (2d Cir. 1967) (custody and visitation rights); Blank v. Blank, 320 F. Supp. 1389, 1391 (W.D.Pa. 1971) (divorce action remanded to state court); Linscott v. Linscott, 98 F. Supp. 802, 804-05 (S.D.Iowa 1951) (property settlement agreement).
Our ruling that plaintiff cannot resort to the federal judiciary is bottomed upon the domestic relations doctrine. Its application in this case, we believe, produces a result consistent with the federal appellate court case. In addition, review of the terms of this particular separation agreement, without the necessity of interpreting their legal ramifications, and the declarations of plaintiff to the state courts, buttresses the district court conclusion that the federal courts have no jurisdictional authority to decide the merits of this case.
The basis of plaintiff's suit in contract is the contention that defendant violated their separation agreement by his failure to pay support. Defendant, in turn, concedes that he terminated payments but argues that he was legally justified in doing so because plaintiff's denial of his visitation rights represented an earlier material breach of contract which voided the entire agreement, including the terms relating to support. Simply stated, defendant's contractual liability is contingent upon a determination of whether he was denied a contractual right and, if so, whether that denial was a material breach of the separation agreement. That determination requires a consideration of a dispute as to visitation rights — an area where the parties agreed, under paragraph 2(g) of the separation agreement, to submit to the jurisdiction and decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
The question of defendant's liability for support payments under the contract is, of course, an entirely separate one from that of his liability for support payments under Pennsylvania law.
The authorities explain that, generally, contractual agreements to limit the jurisdiction of courts are not effective to deprive any court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have unless the provision is justice-promoting, represents a fair compromise after the dispute has arisen, or is tailored to the convenience of the parties. In this case, as we have held, federal courts would not have had jurisdiction. Whether or not paragraph 2(g) is effective to deprive other courts of jurisdiction is a question which we need not reach.
Paragraph 17 of the separation agreement mandated that all disputes, other than those relating to visitation rights, were to be resolved by an arbitration-like procedure. Whether this arbitration clause would serve to deprive us of jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case is a question which we need not decide. It is clear that Pennsylvania courts do not allow arbitration clauses to deprive them of jurisdiction. Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl Co., 418 Pa. 122, 209 A.2d 810 (1965); Mixer, Inc. v. Smith, 229 Pa. Super. 273, 323 A.2d 794 (1974). Though we need not consider the enforceability of this clause, we feel compelled to state that there is no evidence in the record before us that the parties utilized this mechanism in an attempt to resolve their dispute on support payments. See generally 6A Corbin on Contracts, §§ 1432, 1433 and 1445 (1951, Supp. 1962); Restatement of Contracts (ALI), §§ 550 and 558 (1932, Supps. 1948, 1954, 1965, 1972-73); 6 Williston on Contracts, § 1725 (1938 Revised Ed., Supp. 1972). See also Furbee v. Vantage Press, Inc., 150 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 464 F.2d 835, 837 (1972).
Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.), lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be raised and adjudicated by a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment. See, e. g., Jones v. Brush, 143 F.2d 733, 735 (9th Cir. 1944); Safeguard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 372 F. Supp. 939, 946 (E.D.Pa. 1974). Accordingly, the district court's order of summary judgment in favor of defendant will be reversed and the case will be remanded with instructions to enter judgment dismissing the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Costs will be taxed against appellants.
[30] GIBBONS, Circuit Judge (dissenting):
What is clear on the face of the November 22, 1968 agreement, however, is that article 2, dealing with custody and visitation, in which the selection of jurisdiction clause quoted above appears, is entirely severable from the balance of the agreement. The only matter referred to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County is the possible modification of the defendant's visitation rights in the event the wife moves more than fifty air miles from Norristown, Pennsylvania. Article 11 provides for a confession of judgment by any court of record within the United States or elsewhere for any delinquency, deficiency or arrearage in any payments called for in the agreement, and it contains no express exception with respect to payments withheld because of disputes over visitation. Article 17 provides that "all disputes, differences, questions of interpretation, questions of construction, disagreements and other problems" except those dealing with paragraph 2(g), the custody provision, shall be arbitrated by designated arbitrators. An obvious ambiguity is created by the dual existence of an arbitration clause and a confession of judgment clause which, by virtue of the choice of law clause in article 27 must be resolved in accordance with the laws of Pennsylvania. But it is perfectly clear that these provisions, and not paragraph 2(g), govern the defendant's monetary obligations. Thus, it cannot be said, as the majority suggests, although does not decide, that paragraph 2(g) works an ouster of jurisdiction on the district court.
The record does not establish the air mile distance between Norristown, Pennsylvania and Newark, Delaware, where plaintiff and the children now reside.
If we consider the merits of the defendant's asserted defense that plaintiff has materially breached the agreement, the document makes clear that the article dealing with visitation and the one dealing with support are independent and not dependent. Thus the defense is unavailable to defendant. In Moore v. Moore, 38 Pa.D. C.2d 10 (Phila. County Ct. 1965) the court was called upon to interpret an agreement similar to the one before us. The defendant had defaulted in making support payments to his wife on the ground that she had breached a non-molestation covenant in the agreement. Just as the agreement before us does not condition payment on visitation, the agreement in Moore contained no language conditioning payment on non-molestation. The court held that the covenants were independent. It refused to find dependence as a result of a boiler plate recital, a recital quite similar to the one in our agreement. Moreover, it is extremely likely that the Pennsylvania courts would hold, as a matter of law, that the breach of a covenant granting visitation rights is not a defense to an action for arrearages when the support provisions of the agreement are so obviously designed to aid the husband in discharging his legal duty to support his children. See Mallinger v. Mallinger, 197 Pa. Super. 34, 175 A.2d 890 (1961); comment, Selected Aspects of Domestic Relations in Pennsylvania, 15 Vill.L.Rev. 120, 131 (1969).
"`Now therefore, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and undertakings of the parties hereto, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties mutually promise and agree'." 38 Pa. D. C.2d at 17.
"While we do not agree with either of defendant's assertions, we do feel that the present case `involves domestic relations' and thus is a matter which has been traditionally left by the federal courts to the purview of the state court. . . ." Solomon v. Solomon, 373 F. Supp. 1036, 1037 (E.D.Pa. 1974).
"Simply stated, defendant's contractual liability is contingent upon a determination of whether he was denied a contractual right and, if so, whether that denial was a material breach of the separation agreement. That determination requires a consideration of a dispute as to visitation rights — an area where the parties agreed, under paragraph 2(g) of the separation agreement, to submit to the jurisdiction and decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas." (footnote omitted)
But more to the point, there is no well-established domestic relations exception to our subject matter jurisdiction as is announced so confidently by the majority. Rather there is a collection of misstatements of ancient holdings and of ill-considered dicta. I think that the myth of a broad exception to the judicial power of the United States with respect to questions of "domestic relations" was exposed completely and finally by Judge Weinstein's opinion in Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797 (E.D.N.Y. 1968). If that historical review was not sufficient, Judge Friendly's opinion in Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim Ballon v. Rosenstiel, 490 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1973) should have nailed the lid on the coffin. But the majority opinion proposes to give new currency to a hoary heresy. Spindel v. Spindel, supra, holds that there is diversity jurisdiction over a suit seeking damages because the defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to marry him and then fraudulently procured a Mexican divorce. Judge Weinstein discussed, and I suggest effectively explained, the sources of confusion arising from misapplication of dicta in cases such as Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 582, 16 L.Ed. 226 (1859), and In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890). He concluded that there was no bar to adjudications by the federal courts of the status of persons, even married or formerly married persons. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim Ballon v. Rosenstiel, supra, holds that there is diversity jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a New York law firm to recover attorneys fees purportedly authorized by New York law as necessaries for defending a wife in an annulment suit by the husband. Judge Friendly discusses the same group of cases and reaches the same conclusion as did Judge Weinstein in Spindel v. Spindel. He suggests that if there is anything at all to the rule that diversity jurisdiction does not extend to domestic relations matters it narrows down to the possibility, though not the certainty, that a diversity court may not grant a divorce. No useful purpose would be served by repeating the arguments set forth by Judges Friendly and Weinstein in these two well-researched and well-reasoned opinions. Judges Friendly and Weinstein say it as well as it need be said. They make clear that it simply has never been the law that because the dispute is between a present or former husband and wife and involves the marital status it is nonjustifiable in a federal district court. See also Vestal Foster, Implied Limitations on the Diversity Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 41 Minn.L.Rev. 1, 29-31 (1956). I will only add that the holding in Barber v. Barber, supra, compels the conclusion that there is diversity subject matter jurisdiction in this case, since the court there enforced the financial provisions of a separation decree.
The proposition that a diversity court may not grant a divorce, Judge Friendly explains, may be traced to Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1929). Dictum so suggesting appears in that case, but the holding is no more than that the courts of Ohio did have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case involving a consul despite the provisions of the Judicial Code dealing with jurisdiction in suits against consuls. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1251, 1351. Popovici v. Agler as a matter of statutory interpretation is unexceptional. Congress could have made federal jurisdiction exclusive over any dispute to which a consul was a party. The case holds that it did not. But the fact that the Ohio court had jurisdiction tells us nothing about the presence or absence of federal district court jurisdiction.
"Thus, we have a husband, in contemplation of divorce, agreeing that his children shall be entrusted to the custody of their mother and that he will pay substantial sums monthly towards the support of that household. The essential basis of such an agreement is the existence of a lawful marriage and its purpose is to discharge obligations which that status imposes. If the `wife' has concealed an undissolved prior marriage there is no duty to support her and there may well be an unwillingness to entrust her with the custody of the children and the administration of funds for their support. Indeed it is hard to conceive of anything calculated more radically to affect the negotiation of a separation agreement than the discovery by one spouse that the other has knowingly committed bigamy. Therefore, the concealment of an undissolved prior marriage would provide the clearest legal basis for the invalidation of a separation agreement." 263 F.2d at 159.
This brings me to the "law or equity" qualification, heavily emphasized in much of the literature and case law. See Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797 (E.D.N.Y. 1968). This limitation was purely statutory, since § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the circuit courts jurisdiction "of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity," while Article III, § 2 of the constitution unqualifiedly extends the judicial power of the United States " — to Controversies . . between citizens of different States." The § 11 jurisdiction now found in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 has removed the "law and equity" qualification by adopting the language "all civil actions," which would appear to make the diversity subject matter jurisdiction as broad as the text of article III, § 2. At one time Chief Justice Taney attempted, in a concurring opinion, to construct a theory that the "law and equity" language in the clause of article III, § 2 referring to federal question jurisdiction modified the whole section. Fountain v. Ravenel, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 369, 391, 15 L.Ed. 80 (1854). This would have constitutionally excluded district courts, according to Taney, from the exercise of any jurisdiction that was not exercised by the common law courts or the chancellor in 1789. The difficulty with his analysis is that it ignores the text and punctuation of Article II, § 2. Certainly there is nothing in either the constitution or the present diversity statute suggesting an incapacity to adjudicate an issue of child custody. A fortiori, child visitation can be adjudicated. Moreover, even on Taney's erroneous reading of article III there would be jurisdiction to adjudicate child visitation rights as part of a defense in a case at law or in equity involving an alleged breach of contract.
The case involved a Pennsylvania will construction not a domestic relations dispute.
This then brings us to the often criticized and wholly unanalytical case of Albanese v. Richter, 161 F.2d 688 (3d Cir. 1947). That was a diversity suit by an illegitimate child to set aside an instrument signed by his mother allegedly in fraud of his rights, and to enforce New York and New Jersey statutes which require putative fathers to support and educate their illegitimate offspring. In the district court Judge Guy L. Fake pointed out that at common law the putative father was under no obligation to support an illegitimate child. Albanese v. Richter, 67 F. Supp. 771, 772 (D.N.J. 1946). Since the statutory obligation was not one which would have been enforced by the common law or chancery courts in England, he concluded, relying on Taney's faulty thesis in Fontain v. Ravenel, supra, that there was no jurisdiction to enforce the New York or New Jersey statutory duties. On appeal this court affirmed. Its analysis, or lack thereof, consists of the following paragraph:
See, e. g., Vestel Foster, Implied Limitations on the Diversity Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, 41 Minn.L.Rev. 1, 29, 31 (1956); Note, 54 Iowa L.Rev. 390, 391 n. 13 (1968).
Three things can be said about Albanese v. Richter, supra. First, it has been overruled sub silentio by Carr v. Wisecup to the extent that it stands for any broad "domestic relations" exception. Second, it is distinguishable from our case because what was involved was an attempt to enforce in New Jersey a quasi-penal statute of New York or apply a New Jersey statute to a nonresident. Albanese v. Richter is a post- Erie case which totally disregards the obligation of a diversity court to make an Erie analysis. The case should have turned on whether a New Jersey forum would enforce the quasi-penal provisions of the New York statute or apply the quasi-penal provisions of its forum state's statute for the benefit of a non-resident. Third, both the circuit court opinion and the district court opinion are thoroughly indefensible. Of the authorities relied on in the circuit court opinion Fontain v. Ravenel, supra, decided a Pennsylvania will construction dispute over the application of the cy pres doctrine on the merits; In re Burrus, supra, held, correctly, that the old district court lacked diversity jurisdiction; and Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945) was a case on certiorari from a state court which adjudicated nothing whatsoever about district court jurisdiction. The district court opinion merely relied on the Taney error in reading article III § 2, an error, which so far as I can tell, no majority of the Supreme Court has ever espoused.