Aldrich v. Aldrich

Decision Date22 June 1964
Docket NumberNo. 55,55
Citation378 U.S. 540,84 S.Ct 1687,12 L.Ed.2d 1020
PartiesMarguerite Loretta ALDRICH, Petitioner, v. William T. ALDRICH et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Herman D. Rollins, Charleston, W.Va., for petitioner.

Charles M. Love, Charleston, W.Va., for respondents on brief in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Marguerite Loretta Aldrich, was granted a divorce from M. S. Aldrich by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in 1945. The jurisdiction of that court to award the divorce was not contested then, nor is it contested in this action. M. S. Aldrich was ordered by the Court to pay petitioner $250 a month as permanent alimony, and the decree provided that 'said monthly sum of $250.00 shall, upon the death of said defendant (husband), become a charge upon his estate during her (petitioner's) lifetime * * *.' There was no prior express agreement between the parties that the estate would be bound. Subsequently, the husband petitioned the Florida court for a rehearing, which was denied, but the court reduced alimony from $250 to $215 per month. No appeal was taken by either party.

M. S. Aldrich died testate, a resident of Putnam County, West Virginia, on May 29, 1958. His will was duly probated in Putnam County and petitioner filed a claim against the estate for alimony which had accrued after the death of her former husband. The appraisal of the estate showed assets of $7,283.50. Petitioner commenced this action in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, in order to have her rights in the estate determined. She also demanded that certain allegedly fraudulent transfers of real and personal property made by M. S. Aldrich be set aside and the properties which were the subject of such transfers administered as a part of the estate, so as to be subject to her claim for alimony under the Florida divorce decree.

On motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the Circuit Court of Putnam County held that the decree of the Florida divorce court was invalid and unenforceable insofar as it purported to impose upon the estate of M. S. Aldrich an obligation to pay alimony accruing after his death. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the judgment, 147 W.Va. 269, 127 S.E.2d 385. It characterized the controlling question in the case as

'whether the judgment * * * to the extent that it awards alimony to accrue after the death of M. S. Aldrich and makes the alimony so accruing a charge upon his estate, is a valid judgment which is entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this state; for if such judgment is not entitled to such full faith and credit the question of its enforcibility against the property and assets formerly owned by M. S. Aldrich becomes unimportant and need not be considered or discussed.' 147 W.Va., at 274, 127 S.E.2d, at 388.

Recognizing that, as required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, § 1, of the Federal Constitution 'a judgment of a court of another state has the same force and effect in this state as it has in the state in which it was pronounced,' 147 W.Va., at 275, 127 S.E.2d, at 388, the court also noted that 'no greater effect is to be given to it than it would have in the state where it was rendered.' 147 W.Va., at 275, 127 S.Ed.2d, at 389. Although apparently not questioning the power of Florida to impose a charge upon the estate, the court concluded that such a charge was, absent express agreement by the parties to the divorce, improper under Florida law and that 'the judgment awarding such alimony was void and of no force and effect under the law of the State of Florida in which such judgment was rendered and will not be given full faith and credit in the courts of this state.' 147 W.Va., at 283, 127 S.E.2d, at 393. We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • St. Sava Mission Corp. v. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 1990
    ...a judgment of a sister state are governed by the law of the state where the judgment was rendered. (Aldrich v. Aldrich (1964) 378 U.S. 540, 543, 84 S.Ct. 1687, 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 1020, 1023; Martin v. Martin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 752, 761, fn. 13, 87 Cal.Rptr. 526, 470 P.2d 662; Gagnon Co., Inc. v.......
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Boles
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1966
    ...were so well illustrated in the final decision in Aldrich v. Aldrich, 147 W.Va. 269, 127 S.E.2d 385; 163 So.2d 276 (Fla.), 378 U.S. 540, 84 S.Ct. 1687, 12 L.Ed.2d 1020. That case illustrates the distinction between jurisdiction of a court as distinguished from its power, right, authority or......
  • State ex rel. Lynn v. Eddy
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1968
    ...v. Brady, 151 W.Va. 900, 158 S.E.2d 359; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 147 W.Va. 269, 127 S.E.2d 385, reversed on other grounds, 378 U.S. 540, 84 S.Ct. 1687, 12 L.Ed.2d 1020; Gavenda Brothers, Inc. v. Elkins Limestone Company, Inc., 145 W.Va. 732, 116 S.E.2d 910, and the many cases cited in the opini......
  • Orr v. Orr
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1979
    ...91 S.Ct. 856, 28 L.Ed.2d 196 (1971); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, 90 S.Ct. 788, 25 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970); Aldrich v. Aldrich, 378 U.S. 540, 84 S.Ct. 1687, 12 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1964); Dresner v. Tallahassee, 378 U.S. 539, 84 S.Ct. 1895, 12 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1964); Clay v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., 363 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT