Opinion ID: 1831582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether a mississippi court has jurisdiction to determine alimony where the parties were previously granted a foreign divorce without the litigation of alimony.

Text: Under Mississippi law, the litigation of divorce and of alimony are divisible or separable. McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1987) (a chancery court may retain jurisdiction over a case to determine alimony if at the time of the divorce alimony was not justifiable); Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-23 (Supp. 1990) (a court has discretion in determining alimony or adjusting the decree later). However, whether a foreign divorce decree affects the divisibility principle must be addressed. Although there are no Mississippi cases directly on point, a number of jurisdictions also apply the divisibility principle where the divorce decree was obtained from a foreign jurisdiction. Hunter v. Hunter, 359 So.2d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978); Wallace v. Wallace, 290 Md. 265, 429 A.2d 232 (1981); Healey v. Healey, 152 N.J. Super. 44, 377 A.2d 762 (1977); Noel v. Noel, 15 N.J. Misc. 576, 193 A. 558 (Ch. 1937); Bennett v. Bennett, 103 A.D.2d 816, 478 N.Y.S.2d 47 (1984); Metzger v. Metzger, 32 Ohio App. 202, 167 N.E. 690 (1929); Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977); Pollock v. Pollock, 273 Wis. 233, 77 N.W.2d 485 (1956). At least one jurisdiction, however, would bar the subsequent alimony action. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 350 Ill. 227, 183 N.E. 9 (1932). We believe that the better view is for the application of the divisibility principle to both divorce decrees of our own courts and of foreign courts.
This represents no departure from our previous holdings as to the res judicata effects of prior proceedings. Mississippi law is clear that where the case in the foreign court is not decided on its merits, while suit might be barred from any other court in the state where the judgment was rendered it is not res judicata in Mississippi. Lee v. Swain Bldg. Materials Co., 529 So.2d 188, 190 (Miss. 1988). Unquestionably, res judicata principles apply to divorce actions. Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1990); Bias v. Bias, 493 So.2d 342 (Miss. 1986). In the case at bar, alimony was not litigated in the prior Louisiana divorce decree proceedings. The decree plainly states that Barbara's demand for alimony was dismissed with reservation of her right to litigate fault later.
Therefore, the Mississippi lower court clearly had jurisdiction to litigate alimony under these circumstances, as long as the statutory requirements for personal jurisdiction were met. Barbara satisfied the six month residency requirement for divorce proceedings set under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-5 (Supp. 1990). Additionally, but not determinatively, Thomas was employed in Mississippi and most of the marital assets were located in Mississippi at the time of trial. Also, Thomas conceded the authority of the court to divide their property rights. We conclude that the lower court's exercise of jurisdiction to determine alimony was not improper where the parties were previously granted a foreign divorce with reservation of the right to litigate alimony and the statutory residency jurisdictional requirement was satisfied.