McCarthy v. McCarthy
| Decision Date | 07 March 1972 |
| Citation | 280 N.E.2d 151,361 Mass. 359 |
| Parties | Emma McCARTHY v. William L. McCARTHY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Marshall Krasnow, Boston, for respondent.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, SPIEGEL, QUIRICO and HENNESSEY, JJ.
On June 17, 1970, the petitioner filed a petition for separate support in the Probate Court for the county of Plymouth.In the court house corridor that day, she signed a 'pink paper' presented to her by her husband, the respondent.She was represented by an attorney.There was testimony that she later found out that this paper 'had something to do with . . . (her) husband getting a Mexican (d)ivorce.'In the presence of her attorney, she confirmed to a notary public that it was her signature on the document.In return for signing the paper, she subsequently received a deed to the property at 14 Oakland Avenue, Brockton, a house with four apartments, which was previously owned by her and her husband as tenants by the entirety.
On July 1, 1970, the respondent obtained a divorce decree from a civil court in Mexico.He appeared personally with his attorney.The petitioner did not appear but was represented by an attorney, who admitted the allegations in the respondent's petition, and submitted his client to the jurisdiction of the court.
On December 21, 1970, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for separate support on the ground that he and the petitioner were no longer married.This was denied on December 22, 1970, and, after a hearing, a decree was entered prohibiting the respondent from imposing any restraint on the petitioner's personal liberty, and requiring him to pay the petitioner $15 forthwith and every week thereafter, and her reasonable medical and dental bills.The respondent appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss and from the decree of separate support.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
McIntyre v. U.S., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10408-RCL.
...and acted in reliance on it in entering into their subsequent marriage. Id. at 395-96, 409 N.E.2d 758; see also McCarthy v. McCarthy, 361 Mass. 359, 360, 280 N.E.2d 151 (1972) (where wife participated in her husband's Mexican divorce proceedings against her and accepted property during that......
-
Slessinger v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 87-1231
...accepted benefits under it, from challenging its validity. Poor v. Poor, 381 Mass. 392, 409 N.E.2d 758 (1980); McCarthy v. McCarthy, 361 Mass. 359, 280 N.E.2d 151 (1972). However, Massachusetts law is clear that where, as here, there is no estoppel, a stranger to the foreign decree may coll......
-
Poor v. Poor
...in the Mexican decree through her attorney, in exchange for which she received valuable consideration. See McCarthy v. McCarthy, 361 Mass. 359, 280 N.E.2d 151 (1972). See generally, Trivanovitch v. Hobby, 219 F.2d 762, 763 (D.C. Cir. Persons challenging the validity of an out-of-State marri......
-
Thompson v. Harris
...attorney, and had received valuable consideration in exchange; therefore the husband's property devolved to his second wife. 361 Mass. 359, 280 N.E.2d 151 (1972). See also United States v. 21.91 Acres of Land in Hampden County, Mass., 50 F.Supp. 797 (D.Mass. 1943); Chapman v. Chapman, 224 M......