Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt
| Decision Date | 14 January 1955 |
| Citation | 207 Misc. 291 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | Patricia W. Vanderbilt, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., Defendant. |
Monroe J. Winsten and Charles J. Raskin for plaintiff.
Sol A. Rosenblatt and Charles Roden for defendant.
The first affirmative defense interposed by the defendant to this complaint for a legal separation is the fact that the defendant obtained a final decree of absolute divorce from the plaintiff on June 30, 1953, in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in the County of Washoe. That decree is in evidence.
Plaintiff seeks to impeach the bona fides of the defendant's domicile in Nevada, thereby attacking the validity of the Nevada decree.
Under the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in the well-known case of Williams v. North Carolina (317 U. S. 287) and the line of cases following in accord, including our own Court of Appeals, in the Matter of Holmes (291 N.Y. 261) and cases thereafter also in accord, it has been firmly established that a decree of a sister State is entitled to and must be given full faith and credit here, unless the party assailing the validity of such domicile upon which the decree is founded adduces proof sufficient to satisfy the court of this State that such domicile was false and constitutes a fraud upon the decreeing court.
The burden of proof in this respect is upon the person who assails the validity of that decree, and in this case, of course, is upon the plaintiff.
Firmly established is the fact that the validity of the decree being recognized as a valid decree of a court of competent jurisdiction of a sister State, the burden of proof to set this decree aside rests heavily upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that the defendant has not established a residence of any particular place in any State, but that he established one to suit his own convenience at the moment, and shifted from place to place.
In my opinion the proof presented by plaintiff to disprove the bona fides of the defendant's domicile in Nevada upon which his decree is bottomed is totally lacking in probative force and weight. Plaintiff's proof is meager, and has failed to meet the burden of proof required of her to establish by a preponderance of credible evidence that the defendant was not a bona fide resident of the State of Nevada at the time he obtained his decree of divorce there, or that he had not complied with the necessary requirements with respect to the laws of that State.
Implicit in the decree of Nevada is the finding of the jurisdiction of the person and subject matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borowitz v. Borowitz
...... Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1955) 207 Misc. 291, 138 N.Y.S.2d 222, aff'd, 1 A.D.2d 3, 147 N.Y.S.2d 125, aff'd, 1 N.Y.2d 342, 153 N.Y.S.2d 1, 135 N.E.2d 553, ......
-
Rosenthal v. Rosenthal
......303, 92 A. 625; Dyer v. Dyer, 1937, 212 N.C. 620, 194 S.E. 278; Matter of Morizzo, 1957, 335 Mass. 251, 139 N.E.2d 719; Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 1955, 207 Misc. 291, 138 N.Y.S.2d 222; Snyder v. Lane, 1951, 135 W.Va. 887, 65 S.E.2d 483. An action for separate maintenance in some ......
-
Mascioli v. Mascioli
...... Cf. De Luca v. De Luca, 284 App.Div. 987, 135 N.Y.S.2d 438; and cf. also Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 207 Misc. 291, 138 N.Y.S.2d 222, affirmed 1 App.Div.2d 3, 147 N.Y.S.2d 125, affirmed 1 N.Y.2d 342, 153 N.Y.S.2d 1. It is this Court's ......
-
Schafer v. Schafer
......321, 7 So.2d 924. 3 See Gramelspacher v. Gramelspacher, 204 Va. 839, 134 S.E.2d 285; Pegram v. Pegram, 310 Ky. 86, 219 S.W.2d 772; Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 207 Misc. 291, 138 N.Y.S.2d 222; Harris v. Harris (La.App.) 127 So.2d ......