Navarrette v. Laughlin
| Decision Date | 10 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | 37787. |
| Citation | 24 So.2d 672,209 La. 417 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | NAVARRETTE v. LAUGHLIN et al. RICHARDS v. JOSEPH LAUGHLIN, Inc., et al. |
Application for Rehearing Withdrawn Jan. 14, 1946.
Benjamin M. Goodman, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Edward Rightor, L. V. Alba, and W. H. Sellers, all of New Orleans for appellees.
The primary question involved in this review is whether or not a certain decree of divorce rendered in the State of Mississippi is to be given full faith and credit.
The Court of Appeal, 20 So.2d 313, arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff in the divorce suit in Mississippi had not established a bona fide domicile in that state at the time the decree was rendered and refused to give effect to the decree.
Henry J Scoggins, Jr., was married to Mrs. Estelle Richards on January 23, 1923, in the City of New Orleans. One child was born of this union during the month of November, 1923 namely, Vela Dolores Scoggins, who married Jack Favaro on May 3, 1941.
A decree of divorce from his wife, Mrs. Estelle Richards, was obtained by Henry J. Scoggins, Jr., on November 7, 1940, in Hancock County, State of Mississippi. On November 9, 1940, Henry J. Scoggins married Mrs. Carmen Navarrette in Hancock County, Miss. One child was born during this second marriage on November 30, 1941, namely, Carmen Helena Scoggins.
On February 12, 1943, Henry J. Scoggins, Jr., died in the City of New Orleans as the result of an automobile collision.
These consolidated cases were brought against Joseph Laughlin, Inc., the owner of an ambulance, its operator, and the surety, Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. They are based on the ground that the negligent operation of the ambulance was the cause of Scoggins' death.
Mrs. Carmen Navarrette, individually, and on behalf of her minor daughter, Carmen Helena Scoggins, is seeking to recover damages resulting from her husband's death.
Mrs. Estelle Richards is seeking to recover the damages caused by the death of her divorced husband on the ground that the divorce decree rendered in Hancock County, Miss., is invalid for the reason that the court which granted the divorce did not have jurisdiction over the domicile of Henry J. Scoggins, Jr. She takes the position that she is still the legal wife of the decedent.
On trial of the case, the lower court awarded damages in the sum of $7,500 to Mrs. Navarrette individually as widow of the decedent and $7,500 to her for the use and benefit of her minor child, or a total of $15,000. The defendant insurance company was held liable in solido with the other defendants for not more than $10,000, the limit of its liability under its policy. On the same date, the lower court gave judgment dismissing Mrs. Richard's suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed judgment dismissing Mrs. Richards' suit, and her minor child were concerned and dismissed her suit. The demands of Mrs. Richards were recognized, and she was awarded $5,000 with legal interest from judicial demand and costs against the defendants in solido. Mrs. Navarrette applied to this Court for review which was granted. The matter has now been submitted for our disposition.
The reason we granted a review in this case was that we were of the opinion that the Court of Appeal was in error when it refused to give full faith and credit to the decree of the Mississippi court.
It is urged on this review that Mrs. Richards and the defendants did not have the right to collaterally attack the decree of the Mississippi court.
It is well settled that anyone at interest has the right to collaterally impeach a decree of divorce rendered in another state by proving that the court had no jurisdiction. Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577, 157 A.L.R. 1366.
The judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicile. Bell v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175, 21 S.Ct. 551, 45 L.Ed. 804; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, 23 S.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Williams v. North Carolina, supra. Also see: Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 26 S.Ct. 525, 50 L.Ed. 867, 5 Ann.Cas. 1; Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32, 59 S.Ct. 3, 83 L.Ed. 26, 118 A.L.R. 1518.
The only question we can consider with respect to the Mississippi decree is the jurisdictional requirement of domicile. Williams v. North Carolina, supra; Voorhies v. Voorhies, 184 La. 406, 166 So. 121; State v. Wenzel, 185 La. 808, 171 So. 38; State v. Dickinson, 191 La. 266, 185 So. 20.
The burden of undermining the verity of the Mississippi decree rests heavily upon the assailants.
This Court will give full faith and credit to divorce decrees rendered by courts of other states except where it has been conclusively shown by sufficient proof that the court rendering the decree did not have the jurisdictional requirement of domicile. Williams v. North Carolina, supra; Voorhies v. Voorhies, supra; State v. Wenzel, supra; State v. Dickinson, supra.
The testimony of the attorney who brought the divorce proceedings in Mississippi, whose reputation has not been questioned, and that of four other witnesses is to the effect that Scoggins was residing at the Clermont Harbor Inn, Clermont Harbor, Miss., at the time and sometime prior to the filing of the divorce proceedings.
The attorney testified that prior to filing the divorce suit she made an independent investigation which revealed that Scoggins had been living approximately a year and a half at the Clermont Harbor Inn, Clermont Harbor, Miss.
Mrs. Estelle Richards and her daughter's testimony is to the effect that Mrs. Richards and Scoggins separated sometime in 1939. Some stress has been laid on the fact that Mrs. Richards signed a statement in California to the effect that the separation took place in 1940. The evidence is not clear as to who presented the statement to her, but the fact that the insurance company later advised her to enter suit indicates that the party was an agent of the insurance company. This statement was not sworn to and is entirely written, with the exception of Mrs. Richards' signature, in the hand-writing of another person. Mrs. Richards testified that when she signed that statement she was ill and did not give it any particular attention. The use of this statement was the only effort made to impeach her testimony. Under such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finn v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., General Acc., Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Intervenor
...84 So.2d 101 (writs denied). Applicable to the instant case is a statement of principles set forth in the case of Navarrette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672, 674, wherein it was observed: 'It is well settled that anyone at interest has the right to collaterally impeach a decree of di......
-
Boudreaux v. Welch, 48042
...are entitled to collaterally attack the Mississippi divorce decree on jurisdictional grounds under our holdings in Navarette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672 (1946) and Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992, 81 So.2d 371 (1955) inasmuch as plaintiff, in her deposition taken on the motion for su......
-
Wilson v. Wilson, Civ. A. No. 77-450-A.
...rests heavily upon the assailant to show that the rendering court was without jurisdiction, Holden v. Holden, supra; Navarrette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672 (1946); Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126, 72 S.Ct. 157, 96 L.Ed. 146 (1951). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1738 does not require federal or......
-
Winston v. Millaud
...that the decree is valid and the burden of undermining such a judgment rests heavily upon the assailant. Id at 751; Navarrette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672 (1946). The burden to establish that the court of the rendering state was without jurisdiction can only be discharged by clea......