Document: 354 U.S. 416 77 S.Ct. 1360 1 L.Ed.2d 1456 Cornelius VANDERBILT, Jr., Petitioner,v.Patricia W. VANDERBILT and Thomas F. McCoy, Receiver Sequestrator. No. 302. Argued April 22, 23, 1957. Decided June 24, Mr. Sol A. Rosenblatt, New York City, for petitioner. Monroe J. Winsten, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. Vanderbilt, petitioner, Patricia respondent, were married in 1948. They separated 1952 while living California. The wife moved to where she has resided since February 1953. In March that year husband filed suit divorce Nevada. This proceeding culminated, 1953, with a decree final which provided both 'freed released from bonds matrimony all duties obligations thereof. * *'1 was not served process Nevada did appear before court. 2 1954, Mrs. Vanderbilt instituted an action court praying separation petitioner alimony. have personal jurisdiction over him, but order satisfy his obligations, if any, it sequestered property within State.2 He appeared specially and, among other defenses action, contended Full Faith Credit Clause United States Constitution3 compelled treat as having ended marriage destroyed any duty support he owed respondent. While found valid held had effectively dissolved marriage, nevertheless entered order, under § 1170—b Civil Practice Act,4 directing make designated payments 207 Misc. 294, 138 N.Y.S.2d 222. Court Appeals upheld order. N.Y.2d 342, 135 N.E.2d 553. Petitioner then applied this certiorari contending 1170—b, applied, is unconstitutional because contravenes Clause.5 We granted certiorari, 352 820, 67, 45. 3 Estin v. Estin, 334 541, 68 1213, 92 L.Ed. 1561, decided court, no wife, power terminate husband's obligation provide her required pre-existing decree. factor distinguishes present case here wife's right been reduced judgment prior ex parte divorce. our difference material on question us. Since subject its jurisdiction, extinguish law financial husband. It long constitutional rule cannot adjudicate claim or unless person defendant.6 Here, powerless cut off would pay alimony brought court's jurisdiction. Therefore, decree, extent purported affect support, void obligate give recognition.7 4 claims governed by Thompson Thompson, 226 551, 33 129, 57 347. For reasons given concurring Armstrong Armstrong, 350 568, 575, at 580—581, 76 629, 636, 100 705, case, insofar rights, can longer be considered controlling. 5 Affirmed. 6 CHIEF JUSTICE took part consideration decision case. 7 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 8 whether Nevada, empowered grant without respondent must respected, command Constitution, every State, Williams State North Carolina, 317 287, 63 207, 87 279, same time virtue domiciliary connection make, incidental dissolution adjudication denying sister also full faith credit. Whatever answer may be, does supply it. What now states 'not material' crucial namely, respect Clause, Art. IV, 1, Constitution. That fact Court's made clear reference two statements presented more than half dozen times throughout course opinion. rightly regarded requirement credit 'judicial Proceedings.' 9 chooses regard existence material,' holding first 'the (respondent) defendant (citing proposition, Pennoyer Neff, 95 714, 726—727, 24 565).' thus reached another stage—one say last—in tortuous relating status. Whereas previously only 'matrimonial domicile' could alimony, divorce, even domiciliary, when grants parte. 10 will clarity brief review singular history matrimonial Atherton Atherton, 181 155, 21 544, 45 794. granted, basis constructive service, domicile deserted Haddock Haddock, 201 562, 26 525, 50 867, refused extend need domicile. These precedents 347, refusal substituted service. Under pre-Williams law, then, jurisdictional rules tie Not despite lack spouse. 11 I, scope require one spouse domiciled. limitation divorces imposed Hoddock rejected being based 'fiction.' II, 325 226, 65 1092, 89 1577, granting actually finding issue foreclosed decreeding readjudicated later State. But restriction II considerably weakened matter how great interest own social policy, precluded relitigating facts underlying parties merely appearance original proceeding. Sherrer Sherrer, 343, 1087, 1097, 1429, Coe Coe, 378, 1094, 1451. so collateral attack third party who independent interests. Johnson Muelberger, 340 581, 71 474, 552. 12 decisions I through resulted broad extension Clause. rejected, gave too little rights absent spouse, rather much those enough interests spouses subordinated their allegedly pre-divorce post-divorce temporary 'domicile' Coe. 13 One might expected supra, suffered fate. no. logical. shrinks applying Thompson. fact, we are told vice just opposite Haddock: paid And so, compensation, far breaking up marital relation concerned enlarged, concerned. 565, there recover services rendered, I. Although three cases applicable unique factors pertaining severance status determination treated controlling precedent. 14 A normal comprehends incident thereto, arrangement between parties. stand decisions; start proposition legal concern aspect of, indeed to, arrangement, similar relation, nature what adjudicated, constitutionally alike. 15 proceeded they should Court, however, solves statement, 'It defendant.' artful disguise labeling question-begging phrase, 'in personam.' dogmatic, unanalyzed disregard difficulties problem disappear. Strictly speaking, eventually 'personal.' example, successful admiralty against ship results loss owner. is: fair way proceed these interests? May deal comprehensively, chop incidents cause divorce? 16 No explanation vouchsafed why 'personal' denial thereto is. Calling 'personal obligation' nothing. note 'property rights,' fail see worthy equal protection, obligation.' translatable into dollars cents, less valuable assumed, judicial notice were, value highly rights. Factually, therefore, situations involve spouse,1 reason split hold deny 'Divisible divorce' name-calling.2 therefore whole judgment, 17 noted decision, besides turning relations topsyturvy, created numerous problems whose solution obvious. divorcing made. She (or he) sue wherever serve attach property. happen Most do statutes like statute involved Would catches entertain alimony? cry Hughes Fetter, 341 609, 980, 1212. Also, settled ex-wife ex-husband due process, able once man wife. 18 Another view, agreeing parte, least purposes judgment. 'New York's policy is,' argument runs, 'that woman domiciled survives obtained elsewhere. domiciliaries seems sufficient weight justify allowing apply effect surviving domiciliaries.' 19 To begin with, pretended discriminating adjudications out-of-state divorces, personally domiciliary. Her provides ordinary non-matrimonial action. See 298—299, 213, 279; Milliken Meyer, 311 457, 463, 61 339, 85 278. 20 go heart matter, itself adjustment conflicting States, free, weighing particular cases, readjustments exist. clause requires 'Full shall each Judicial Proceedings State.' 28 U.S.C. 1738, U.S.C.A. s 1738. true commands inexorable sense exceptional circumstances relieve giving 'obnoxious' overriding own. such instances 'have few between, apart Haddock.' 294—295, 211. Of substantial divorced justification refuse desiring almost always connection. unusual making exception requirements them because, already stated, stronger state urged overridden Blanket discrimination decrees subordinates York. 22 'mere survival right' proof word 'right' most deceptive pitfalls; easy slip qualified meaning premise unqualified conclusion.' American Bank & Trust Co. Federal Reserve Bank, 256 350, 358, 41 499, 500, 983. There until termination determine indicents Nor analysis furthered analogizing dower 'right,' thence sliding conclusion recognize cutting dower, differences decisive spell out assumed reach problem. 23 becoming single penniless greater single.' doubtless correct statement furnish legislation kind indigent condition former wives.3 me, rigorous determinative. (as expressed Act) one, other. 25 HARLAN, holds today, understand opinion, lacking purporting wholly presumably well York—under Due Process Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant doctrine 565. 27 agree holding. place, necessity pass all. Our initially least, affects property, 'void' binds words, not, instance, decide forbids do, compels do. wisest commentators warned us beware 'constricting necessitarianism' deeming questions same: 'In fraught infelicities whatever mediation devised, wisdom confining pronouncements closely imperative logically necessary Nevada's mastery boundaries projection beyond them. Freedom home manufacture consumption necessarily entail freedom export. Only meant 'jurisdiction' either unlimited frailty conditioned total impotence home.' T. R. Powell, Repent Leisure, 58 Harv.L.Rev. 930, 936. 29 Were question, means ready proceeding, inextricably knit support. Judge Fuld, dissenting below, rests 'erroneous mere status, furnishes foundation action' equivalent right.'1 help label Vanderbilt's 'property' personam, rem, matter. If service clearly is, 279), cannot, 30 think, forecloses revert, what, real case: purports support? turns squarely 31 situation seem me follows: favor subsequent My 'no.' domiciliaries. my view follow automatically validity different considerations. quote again Professor Powell: 32 'The 'irreconcilable conflict' insuperable dealing matters money. irksome wives jail Though yield, maintenance yielding necessary. '* accommodate fully possible States.' particularities individual type upon desirability generality predictability consistent degree control conduct relationships persons folks. 34 '(It argued) stay-behind quondam continue her, meritorious opposing prevent accredited him after blindly satisfied intended indefinite stay there. sensible obvious never become confused studying law.' 952, 954—955. 35 effect, analogous dower. survive suppose spite weigh uniform nation, local policy. Where concerned, certainty outweighs domiciliaries, Carolina forced swallow views though Williams, supra. that, somewhat unpalatable limits logic onto compel elsewhere will, pauperized well. course, distinction 'worth' remaining single. deprived benefit national uniformity, vanish it, uniformity compelling.2 36 deciding remember found, measuring competing interests, prevail. done determining rest inexorability 'judgment' eliminate outside solve right.3 37 Quite presented, becomes pretend assuring right, predivorce teeth marriage. And, kind. Furthermore, aside choice think look contact unfortunate permit comb country, search favorable laws, obtain State.4 38 Thus here, On am left some doubt. Section 1165—a Act makes year's residence suits amenable interpretation lapse year, involved. de Meli Meli, 120 N.Y. 485, N.E. 996. hand, below intimates oneyear residency procedural prerequisite filing ab initio.5 uncertainty remand reconsideration light above-stated principles. put end provided, courts this. Sweney Sweeney, 42 Nev. 431, 438—439, 179 P. 638, 639—640; Herrick Herrick, 55 59, 68, P.2d 380. 547, 1217, 1561. Pennington Fourth Nat. Cincinnati, 243 269, 282, 713; Harris Balk, 198 215, 625, 49 1023. 1. public Acts, Records, Congress general Laws prescribe Manner Records proved, Effect thereof.' judgments force rendered. annulment, refuses relief declaring nullity obtained, may, nevertheless, render justice wife.' Gilbert-Bliss' Civ.Prac., Vol. 6A, 1956 Cum.Supp., 1170—b. petition raised number contentions. find reversing below. 633, authorities collected there, set forth detail Cf. Meredith Meredith, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 355, F.2d 257, 69 1497. 'A lacks absolve which, second state, owe absence latter.' Restatement, Conflict Laws, 116(2) (Tent. Draft 1953), Comment f 116. Custody children presents entirely Anderson, 345 528, 73 840, 97 1221. human beings, children, spouses' children. still parents appeal phrase 'divisible permitted obscure basic concepts divisibility appropriate where, distinct embodied dependent, recognition enforcement, relationship, rendering severed separate future. decidedly us, asserted depends very continuance terminated jurisdictionally divorce.' Appeals, 356—357, 553, 561. add concept misnomer. divisible. terminating divided. Does control? Since, get Then, domicilliary party, entitled 357, easier flat distinctions Yet, standpoint partitioning several states, gap forbid require. Certainly money grounds thought good exerting relies strength yet bound lend hand.' 936; id., n. 14. compendious exposition many demand automatic dissent Stone Cardozo Yarborough Yarborough, 290 202, 54 181, 185, 78 269. hardly dispute assertion defined territory another, often inescapable conflict comes point imposition borders involves forbidden infringement legitimate domestic vary case; provisions specific terms congressional enactment, qualify claimed proceedings records states.' Id., page 186 (footnotes omitted). Morris, Divisible Divorce, 64 1287. draw implication following passage Appeals: 'But husband, abandoning California establish purposes, abandoned herself bring her. exercised instance suing *. come York, foreign-State take advantage section 1170—b.' 351, 557.

Category: 3