Maryland Montgomery County Divorce Null Void Lawyers Attorneys
DAY v. DAY
DAY v. DAY
Court of Appeals of Maryland
FACTS:
Appellants, a husband and his alleged current wife, sought review of a decision of a Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Maryland), which decreed that an Alabama
divorce obtained by the husband was null and void, that the subsequent marriage of the husband to his current wife was invalid, and that appellee wife was the legal wife of the husband. The appellee, Alice W. Day (the wife) brought suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a declaratory judgment that the Alabama decree was invalid and for an order against Nancy H. Stone, the other appellant, also known as Nancy H. Day, enjoining her from using the name Day or representing herself as the lawful wife of the husband. After the taking of testimony, the lower court decreed that the Alabama divorce was null and void, that the subsequent marriage of the husband to Mrs. Stone was invalid, and that the wife is the legal wife of the husband. The husband and Mrs. Stone have appealed.
ISSUES:
The following are the issues to be decided:
Whether the
Divorce Decree entered by the Alabama Court is valid in Maryland.
Whether the Waiver and Consent signed by the wife in Maryland serves as an estoppel on the wife's right to attack the Divorce Decree.
DISCUSSION:
Whether the Divorce Decree entered by the Alabama Court is valid in Maryland.
Under U.S. Const. article 4, 1, full faith and credit must be given a decree of divorce rendered by a court of a sister state, if that state had jurisdiction over the persons. Maryland has exclusive jurisdiction over its citizens in respect of the marriage relation and its dissolution. That jurisdiction, however, is subject to the Full Faith and Credit clause; if a divorce decree of a sister state is valid. If it is valid, the decree can not be collaterally attacked in Maryland, even though both a husband who obtained the divorce and a wife who attacked it are citizens of Maryland. The wife is barred from attacking the decree, not because Alabama had jurisdiction, but because the doctrine of res judicata bars her from questioning the jurisdiction to which she submitted. For that doctrine to be applicable, however, the decree of divorce must be one entered after proceedings in which both husband and wife participated in actuality, and in which both parties were given full opportunity to contest the jurisdictional issues. In the present case, the wife was domiciled in Maryland and was not present during the proceedings. The husband here has been domiciled in
Maryland since birth, and has never resided in Alabama. He went to the Alabama court the morning he arrived in that state and left there by plane the afternoon of the same day.
That decree, upon the husband's own testimony, was a fraud upon the court which granted it. The decree is null and void.
Whether the Waiver and Consent signed by the wife in Maryland serves as an estoppel on the wife's right to attack the Divorce Decree.
Where an absent spouse did not appear in a state granting a divorce decree, and her alleged participation is based upon a document signed by her in the state in which she is domiciled, the validity of that document is for the state of domicile to determine. The reviewing court has recognized the importance of a wife being represented by independent counsel in considering the validity of an antenuptial agreement. It is at least equally important that she have the benefit of such counsel before executing a document consenting to proceedings for the dissolution of the marriage. "If the original defendant spouse seemingly then participated but in actuality did not, the inattentive deluded or defrauded one may later collaterally attack the divorce." The waiver and consent signed by a wife domiciled in Maryland and used in divorce proceedings in Alabama did not estop her from attacking the validity of the divorce.
JUDGMENT:
The court affirmed the trial court's decree and found that the costs were to be paid by the husband and his alleged current wife.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Maryland Montgomery County Divorce Null Void Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
Warren Buffet's Early Day of Value Investing - The Buffet Partnership Letters Characteristics And Responsibilities Of A Dui Lawyer Investing In Shares : What Works And What Doesn't Lasting Power of Lawyer (UK Law) Retirement Essentials How to Find the Best Divorce Lawyer-Your Case Depends on it Mistreated Employees Are Guaranteed If They Hire Work Cover Lawyers Middle And Lower Class Citizens Affected The Same By Lawyers' Fees Santa Barbara Dui Lawyer - How To Select The Best Santa Barbara Dui Attorney An Experienced Ohio Dui Lawyer Can Surely Make A Difference In Your Case Irs Tax Lawyers Retirement plans A necessity of life The Different Types of Lawyers and What They Do