Document: 378 U.S. 540 84 S.Ct 1687 12 L.Ed.2d 1020 Marguerite Loretta ALDRICH, Petitioner,v.William T. ALDRICH et al. No. 55. Argued Oct. 24, 1963. Decided June 22, 1964. Herman D. Rollins, Charleston, W.Va., for petitioner. Charles M. Love, respondents on brief in opposition to petition writ of certiorari. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, Aldrich, was granted a divorce from S. Aldrich by the Circuit Court Dade County, Florida, 1945. The jurisdiction that court award not contested then, nor is it this action. ordered pay petitioner $250 month as permanent alimony, and decree provided 'said monthly sum $250.00 shall, upon death said defendant (husband), become charge his estate during her (petitioner's) lifetime * *.' There no prior express agreement between parties would be bound. Subsequently, husband petitioned Florida rehearing, which denied, but reduced alimony $215 per month. No appeal taken either party. 2 died testate, resident Putnam West Virginia, May 29, 1958. His will duly probated County filed claim against had accrued after former husband. appraisal showed assets $7,283.50. Petitioner commenced action order have rights determined. She also demanded certain allegedly fraudulent transfers real personal property made set aside properties were subject such administered part estate, so under decree. 3 On motion summary judgment defendants, held invalid unenforceable insofar purported impose an obligation accruing death. Supreme Appeals Virginia affirmed judgment, 147 W.Va. 269, 127 S.E.2d 385. It characterized controlling question case 4 'whether extent awards accrue makes valid entitled full faith credit courts state; if its enforcibility formerly owned becomes unimportant need considered or discussed.' at 274, S.E.2d, 388. 5 Recognizing that, required Full Faith Credit Clause, Art. IV, § 1, Federal Constitution, 'a another state has same force effect pronounced,' 275, 388, noted 'no greater given than where rendered.' S.Ed.2d, 389. Although apparently questioning power concluded was, absent divorce, improper law 'the awarding void State rendered state.' 283, 393. We certiorari, 372 963, 83 S.Ct. 1088, 10 128, decide whether complied with mandate Clause. 6 Being uncertain regarding relevant believing determinative we certified (375 75, 184, 11 141, 375 249, 251—252, 305, 304) following questions Court, pursuant Rule 4.61 Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.: 7 1. Is purports bind deceased permissible, absence two spouses authorizing contemplating decree? 8 2. If does error entering render without matter regard aspect cause? 9 3. thus lacking, may defect challenged time appellate review expired, (i) representatives (ii) persons whom transferred consideration? 4. impermissible attack lack those mentioned subparagraph 3, successfully based rendition court, answer our certification, determined although purporting proper law, rendering did thereby lose over case. further decided 'when failed take give reviewing opportunity correct error, passed into verity, became final, now collateral attack.' Fla., 163 So.2d 276, 284. Having negative both first questions, believed unnecessary consider latter questions. accordingly passage quoted above meaning any ground been sustained. Given answers plain misapprehension sister State, cannot stand. must treated perfectly substantive principles law. argued rule imposing burden divorced man who day violates due process, binding him, considers privity long seek bound consistent process. That broad scope clear, see Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 581, 71 474, 95 L.Ed. 552, questioned neither respondents. 13 below reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 14 Reversed directions.

Category: 10