Document: 342 U.S. 402 72 S.Ct. 398 96 L.Ed. 448 SUTTONv.LEIB. No. 143. Submitted Dec. 3, 1951. Decided March 1952. Rehearing Denied April 7, See 343 921, 674. Messrs. John Alan Appleman, Urbana, Ill., Edward D. Bolton, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Arthur M. Fitzgerald, Springfield, respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 By reason a divorce in an Illinois state court, with judgment monthly installments alimony until remarriage, petitioner asserts that her divorced husband, respondent Leib, is liable unpaid alimony. Asserting diversity jurisdiction, petitioner, divorcee, filed suit United States District Court Southern Illinois. Claim recovery made, notwithstanding later marriage by to another Nevada, subsequently annulled York, period from Nevada remarriage third presumably valid man. To respondent's plea obligation was finally ended Mrs. Sutton relied upon annulment decree as determining void. She contends Full Faith and Credit Clause Federal Constitution requires hold void ab initio virtue annulment;1 obliterates existence Sutton. 2 The trial court rendered summary Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed. 188 F.2d 766. affirmance bottomed on conclusion that, it terminated liability under divorce. thus gave full faith credit rather than annulment.2 Because disposition this case required treatment important question federal law, review granted writ certiorari. 846, 73. 3 Facts. Petitioner, Verna Sutton, respondent, 1939, terms awarded $125 'on or before first day each calendar month * so long plaintiff shall remain unmarried, remains force effect.' On July 1944, Reno, married Walter Henzel who had obtained Dorothy Henzel, resident not been served made no appearance there. One later, August brought separate maintenance proceeding courts York. defended suit. resulted Henzel's favor, declaring 'null void.' With service Dorothy's process Walter, ceased living him, January 1945 him. In also appeared. June 6, 1947, entered interlocutory after which became final three months thereafter. This declared petitioner's void' he 'had wife at time said marriage.' 4 There appeal Henzels. No further action taken concerning holding Henzels' null annulling jurisdiction enter judgments unquestioned. 5 Analysis Issues. Collection sought against party any judicial proceedings appears none records either state. law governs court's decision case.3 But responsibility constitutional issues involved rests Court.4 controversy presents, fundamentally, problem wit, rule effect second provisions awarding support remarriage. 6 As recognize validity sister states, will vary because post-divorce recorded events underlying litigation took place other states alleged conflict decisions between such existed certain tax estate cases.5 Rather situation more nearly approaches Barber v. Barber, 323 77, 65 137, 89 82. Tennessee refused North Carolina arrears ground its lack finality Carolina. We reversed Tennessee's decision, nor error rules but our determination therefore enforceable matter Clause. So case, Illinois' claim must be reached basis giving various entitles them. way performs intended function avoiding relitigation adjudicated issues, while leaving forum application predetermined facts new problem. Riley Trust Co., 315 343, 348—349, 62 611—612, 82 885. 7 Legal Effect Events. Petitioner were Nevada. Thereafter putative husband court. subjected themselves their far record shows, parties subject matter. burden one attacking demonstrate invalidity.6 That res judicata unassailable collaterally.7 both ceremony effective determine relationship did exist filing present complaint declaration nullity hereinafter treated. determines marital status just relationship. If personal would have states.8 marriage, entitled throughout Nation, well Illinois.9 8 invalidation Henzels stands same position. neither personally appearance, attack nullification over contested action.10 9 leads us quoted note 2, supra, incorrect case. performed held invalid then wife. declares bigamous marriages void.11 10 Conclusion. adjudications given Illinois, however, does decide controversy. Although give decrees does,12 remains. Does sufficient vitality release his pay due? 11 annulment, conclusive everywhere compels reat void.13 rule, require rights incident invalidity all states. Annulment is, respect effect, analogous A divorce, spouse appearing only constructive service, frees bonds matrimony accord result separable legal entering decree.14 Without reference incidents relation where spouses are actually we think equally clear, free itself York's obligations stranger decree. 12 necessarily presents questions resting nonfederal issue suitable separation courts.15 remaining matters courts.16 13 It frequently said, fiction, makes though never occurred. fiction variously treated different jurisdictions.17 For example apparently recover annulment.18 14 has whether adjusted there compromise disputed claim. 15, supra. accept ruling. occasion consider obligation. 15 Where foreign followed based partly here involved, former 'remarry' remarriage.19 What when (Nevada) judicially invalid, circumstances, if all, during may owed Sleicher Sleicher, 251 N.Y. 366, 167 N.E. 501, not, know, determined. 16 should cause remanded conformity opinion. 17 ordered. 18 Reversed remanded. 19 BLACK agrees affirm judgment. 20 FRANKFURTER, concurring. 21 illustrates what little excuse left certainly since Erie R. Co. Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 1188, curbed unwarranted freedom fashion local defiance law. my Brother naturally enough concludes turning point having whatever essential functions serve, peculiarly ill-suited imposed 'for unmarried' ceases goes through form regardless binding ceremony. consult solely own provision relates merely union legally marry. crucial issue, told, seems me undesirable administration, ascertainment I know formulation—of committed very nature things can render tentative indecisive 22 Tentative indecisive, view takes authoritatively supplanted settle namely, Supreme Such readily solicited declaratory procedure. precisely kind utility device fulsomely acclaimed. Instead availing modern procedure, discord passeth understanding. 23 doubt tentatively answer immediate concerned. conductive interests general compel tomorrow definitively contradicted State say. remand seeks deliberate speed courts. 24 Subject qualification, agree 'Full public Acts, Records, Proceedings every State. And Congress Laws prescribe Manner Records proved, thereof.' Constitution, Art. IV, § 1. Pursuant section, early prescribed substantially words now used: 'Such copies thereof, authenticated, within Territories Possessions they usage State, Territory Possession taken.' 28 U.S.C. 1738, U.S.C.A. 1738. 'We searched numerous cases decided migratory definitive decreed it. assumed rendered. Thus Frankfurter remarks concurring opinion, Williams Carolina, 317 287, 307, 63 207, 217, 87 279, 'It indisputable here, like Connecticut Haddock (v. Haddock) (201 562, 26 525, 50 867) rendered.' Murphy, 325 226, 239, 1092, 1099, 1577, 'The unquestioned authority, consistent procedural due process, grant divorces sees fit meet statutory requirements. entitled, moreover, absolute confines borders.' Rutledge, dissenting page 244, 1102 (89 1577), comments fact voided decision. could be, test applies sustain upholds convictions. stands, founded it, unimpeached.' He Black, dissenting, call attention Court, Hence, spite absence clear-cut statement main opinions successful extraterritorial challenge spell out authority assumption survives unless set aside 'Assuming thereto resumed capacity follows concerned, inhibition state, challenging immediately Under defendant, latter continue payments thereby. reinstated revived subsequent York.' 768. 1188; Angel Bullington, 330 183, 67 657, 91 832. 81, 138, Worcester County Riley, 302 292, 185, 268, cited. held, 299, 187, without consent, uniformity domicile Cf. Texas Florida, 306 398, 410, 59 563, 569, 83 817. 608, 86 Georgia determined decedent's Georgia. interpleader Delaware, involving transfer stock Delaware corporation two representatives decedent appointed respective representative other, delivery representative. 86, 141, 82; Cook Cook, 126, 128, 157, 159. Treinies Sunshine Mining 308 66, 76—78, 60 44, 49, 50, 84 85. Sherrer Sherrer, 334 68 1087, 92 1429. supra; Milliken Meyer, 311 457, 462, 61 339, 342, 85 278. citing 1577; Rice Rice, 336 674, 69 751, 93 957. Nev.Comp.Laws, 1929, 4066; Poupart 34 Nev. 336, 123 P. 769. 1, Union & Planters' Bank Memphis, 189 71, 75, 604, 606, 47 712. 291—304, 209—216, 279. Estin Estin, 541, 1213, 1561. MacKay MacKay, 279 App.Div. 350, 110 N.Y.S.2d Propper Clark, 337 472, 489, 1333, 1343, 1480 et seq., Furthermore already settlement accruing prior do amount pages 767—768. Moore Shook, 276 Ill. 47, 55, 114 592; Darst Lang, 367 119, N.E.2d 659. Meredith City Winter Haven, 320 228, 64 88 9; 486, 1341, 1480. re Wombwell's Settlement, (1922) Ch. 298. Here trust settlor 'until marriage' thereafter trusts spouses. annulled. funds initio. Likewise Chapman Bradley, 33 L.J.Ch. 139. Garnett, 74 570; Bishop Smith, Vict.L.R. 313; P., (1916) I.R. 400. Vernier, American Family Laws, 53, Suits Annul Judgment, 48, Issue Prohibited Marriages (this includes annulment). some declared. McKinney's Consolidated c. 14, Book Domestic Relations Law, 7. incidents, see Henneger Lomas, 145 Ind. 44 32 L.R.A. 848 (seduction, tort); Burney 111 Tex.Cr.R. 599, S.W.2d 375 criminal); Miller Wall, 216 Ala. 448, 113 So. 501 (marriage, annulled, postpone distribution estate, distributable marriage); Deeds Strode, Idaho 317, 55 656, 43 207 (civil action); Figoni Figoni, 211 Cal. 354, 295 339 (distribution community property). avoids double 501. Frank Carter, 219 35, 549, L.R.A.1917B, 1288 (husband necessaries annulment); Matter Moncrief, 235 390, 139 550, 27 A.L.R. 1117 (child illegitimate). called forth many handed down. Harv.L.Rev. 109; 30 Col.L.Rev. 877; 25 Ill.L.Rev. 99; Minn.L.Rev. 93; 39 Yale L.J. 133. Lehmann Lehmann, 225 Ill.App. 513, 522, 526, saying: used refer act distinguished thereafter.' 'Even considered Jersey, performed, successive domiciles, disclosed contrary finding chancellor appealed from, she remarried meaning contained 1915, written agreement into about time, thereby elected forfeit, right receive respondent.' influenced practical construction parties. 516, 527. Wilson 256 460, 100 222, L.R.A.,N.S., 365.

Category: 10