Hayutin v. Hayutin
| Decision Date | 06 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20341,20341 |
| Citation | 381 P.2d 272,152 Colo. 261 |
| Parties | Arthur B. HAYUTIN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Elaine R. HAYUTIN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John B. Barnard, Jr., Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Ginsberg, Charles A. Murdock, Denver, for defendant in error.
The parties appear here in reverse order to their appearance in the trial court. We refer to them as Elaine and Arthur.
The parties entered into a purported marriage at Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 23, 1962. At that time and for many years prior thereto both Elaine and Arthur were and had been residents of Arapahoe County, Colorado.
After spending a few days in Las Vegas the parties returned to Arapahoe County, Colorado.
On April 27, 1962, Arthur filed suit in Nevada seeking to have his purported marriage to Elaine annulled. Elaine was served with process in this action in Arapahoe County on April 30, 1962.
On April 30, 1962, Elaine caused to be issued and served on Arthur a summons notifying Arthur that she was seeking in the District Court of Arapahoe County a decree of separate maintenance.
On May 2, 1962, complaint was filed in the Arapahoe County action, together with a petition for an injunction to restrain Arthur from proceeding further in the Nevada annulment suit. On May 4, 1962, Elaine filed her petition for temporary support money and attorney fees.
After hearings orders were entered directing Arthur:
1. To refrain from proceeding further in the Nevada case.
2. To pay to Elaine for her support $350.00 per month and to pay to her attorneys temporary attorney fees in the amount of $800.00.
Orders were entered dispensing with the filing of motions for a new trial.
Arthur is here by writ of error seeking reversal of both orders.
The parties are in agreement that the courts of Colorado and Nevada each have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate marriages to be valid or invalid and granting annulment when determined invalid.
From the record it appears that Arthur not only had commenced his Nevada annulment suit, but had also served Elaine with process prior to the time she commenced her suit in Arapahoe County for separate maintenance.
All of the contentions of the parties in both actions can be fully litigated and determined in the Arapahoe County case; whereas, only the question of the validity of the marriage could be determined in the Nevada case.
Though this court has not ruled upon the propriety of restraining one from prosecuting a case in another jurisdiction, the general rule is well established that courts of equity will and should in proper cases enjoin a party to a divorce or separate maintenance action from proceeding in an annulment suit in a foreign jurisdiction.
In 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 49, page 499, it is said:
'An action or proceeding in another state or country generally may be enjoined on the ground that it interferes inequitably with local litigation affecting local citizens or residents, evades the law of the local state, or otherwise requires the interposition of equity to prevent manifest wrong or injustice.
* * *
* * *
'In accordance with these principles, and subject to the rules relating to grounds for restraining an action or proceeding generally as discussed supra §§ 37-40, an action or proceeding in another state will be enjoined, even though complainant has made a general appearance therein, where it is made to appear that its prosecution will interfere unduly and inequitably with the progress of local litigation or with the establishment of rights properly justiciable in the local court, will subject complainant to fraud, gross wrong, or oppression, to irreparable injury, or to great hardship, inconvenience, or expense, such as in transporting witnesses and documentary evidence; that the action was instituted for the purpose of, or will result in, securing to plaintiff therein some unfair, unconscionable or inequitable advantage, arising either under the law or the facts; that it is unduly annoying, vexatious, and harrassing or is contrary to equity and good conscience;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Peper, In re
...without merit. Colorado courts have the power to enjoin a party from proceeding in an action in another jurisdiction. Hayutin v. Hayutin, 152 Colo. 261, 381 P.2d 272 (1963). This power may be exercised when another action interferes unduly or inequitably with the progress of the local litig......
-
Rieger v. Rieger
...658 (1958), it was within the authority of the trial court to enjoin plaintiff from proceeding in that litigation. Hayutin v. Hayutin, 152 Colo. 261, 381 P.2d 272 (1963). II Nor is there any merit to plaintiff's contention that she was denied notice, as required by C.R.C.P. 6(d), of defenda......