Opinion ID: 1838354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Next to be reviewed is the matter of Dr. Cooper's return to Iowa ten days after entry of the Nevada decree.

Text: Ordinarily this alone might be deemed to indicate Cooper's sole purpose in moving to Nevada was to there secure a divorce. Assuming, arguendo, he was so motivated in moving there such would not, per se, negate a good faith acquisition of domicile in that state. See Commonwealth v. Lorusso, 189 Pa.Super. 403, 150 A.2d 370, 374-375 (1959) ; Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, § 29; 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation, § 252; 27B C.J.S. Divorce §§ 339-340. Furthermore, Cooper's early return to Iowa was inferentially attributed by defendant to the doctor's inability to obtain an anesthesiologist's license in Nevada due to an existing overabundance of such specialists. Touching on the same subject, exhibits in evidence reveal Dr. Cooper elected to apply for and did obtain a permanent general practitioner's license for which at least $200 was paid. X. Last to be considered is the matter of continued payments under the Iowa separate maintenance decree. Pertinent thereto is Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 546-549, 68 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-1218, 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948). The court there essentially held, any determination as to whether a sister state divorce terminates obligations under a prior in-state separate maintenance decree is a matter determinable under local law. In that regard we have, in substance, taken the position the entry of a foreign state adjudication in an uncontested divorce action has no effect upon an existing Iowa separate maintenance decree. See Miller v. Miller, 200 Iowa 1193, 206 N.W. 262 (1925) ; Annot., 49 A.L.R.3d 1266, 1299-1304. See also Bennett v. Tomlinson, 206 Iowa 1075, 1078-1080, 221 N.W. 837 (1928). Thus, absent any attempt by Cooper to modify the separate maintenance decree, continued payments thereunder bear no relationship to the matter of his Nevada domicile. XI. Other relevant facts and circumstances to which reference has heretofore been made either heavily favor a finding that Dr. Cooper did establish a timely domicile in Nevada, or are not of such weight as to otherwise tip the scales. We are accordingly persuaded and now hold plaintiff failed to negate the presumption of jurisdiction which attends the decree of divorce here in question. It therefore follows trial court's adjudication must stand. Affirmed.