Opinion ID: 2614308
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questions : First. Was the second Mexican decree of divorce procured by plaintiff from defendant Winifred C. Scott invalid because there was a subsisting separate maintenance decree between the parties on March 17, 1956, the date said second Mexican decree was entered?

Text: No. [1] The following rule is here applicable: Although there is a subsisting separate maintenance decree, another jurisdiction can grant a divorce to one of the parties and validly terminate the relation of husband and wife. In Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 [68 S.Ct. 1213, 92 L.Ed. 1561, 1 A.L.R.2d 1412], a wife procured a separate maintenance decree in New York. Thereafter the husband went to Nevada and, upon constructive service, was granted an ex parte Nevada divorce decree. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Nevada decree was entitled to full faith and credit, saying, at page 546: The State has a considerable interest in preventing bigamous marriages and in protecting the offspring of marriages from being bastardized and again, at page 549: The result in this situation is to make the divorce divisible  to give effect to the Nevada decree insofar as it affects marital status and to make it ineffective on the issue of alimony. It accommodates the interests of both Nevada and New York in this broken marriage by restricting each State to the matters of her dominant concern. (See also Worthley v. Worthley, 44 Cal.2d 465, 468 [2] [283 P.2d 19].)