Peace v. Peace
| Decision Date | 24 October 1972 |
| Citation | 288 N.E.2d 602,362 Mass. 536 |
| Parties | Myrtle Patricia Madison PEACE v. Wayne PEACE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William P. Fitzgerald, Springfield, for libellant.
Before TAURO, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and KAPLAN, JJ.
This libel for divorce was entered in the Probate Court on November 4, 1971. It alleged that the parties were married in Pennsylvania on November 13, 1960, that they had last lived together as husband and wife in that State, that 'at Chester, Pennsylvania on or about the third day of April 1971 and at divers other times and places the said libellee was guilty of cruel and abusive treatment towards your libellant,' that the 'cause of action for divorce occurred outside the Commonwealth,' and that the 'libellant has resided in this Commonwealth since April 14, 1971.' The libellee is described as a resident of Chester, Pennsylvania. No order of notice was ever issued for service on him, and he has filed no appearance submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. On November 5, 1971, a judge of the Probate Court dismissed the libel and the case is before us on the libellant's appeal from the decree of dismissal.
In a report of material facts filed on November 17, 1971, 1 the judge stated that because '(t)he listed cause for divorce occurred outside this Commonwealth, and the libellant has resided in this Commonwealth since April 14, 1971, . . . this Court does not appear to have jurisdiction to hear this libel.' He therefore dismissed the libel for lack of jurisdiction and cited G.L. c. 208, §§ 4 and 5, as the basis for his action. Section 4 provides that: 'A divorce shall not, except as provided in the following section, be decreed if the parties have never lived together as husband and wife in this commonwealth; nor for a cause which occurred in another jurisdiction, unless before such cause occurred the parties had lived together as husband and wife in this commonwealth, and one of them lived in this commonwealth at the time when the cause occurred.' The allegations of the libel do not bring the case within the provisions of this section. Section 5, as amended through St.1969, c. 162, provides in part that '(i)f the libellant has lived in this commonwealth for two years last preceding the filing of the libel if the cause occurred without the commonwealth, . . . a divorce may be decreed for any cause allowed by law, unless it appears that the libellant has removed into this commonwealth for the purpose of obtaining a divorce.' The allegations of the libel do not bring the case within the provisions of this section since the alleged cause for divorce had 'occurred without the commonwealth,' and the libellant had not 'lived in this commonwealth for two years last preceding the filing of the libel.' 2 This court has held in several cases that on facts similar to those of the present case the Probate Court is without jurisdiction to grant a divorce. Hayes v. Hayes, 256 Mass. 97, 152 N.E. 91; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter, 324 Mass. 581, 586, 88 N.E.2d 135. See Field v. Field, 236 Mass. 256, 128 N.E. 9; Kisley v. Kisley, 322 Mass. 676, 79 N.E.2d 287.
The report of material facts states that counsel for the libellant 'claimed that these sections (G.L. c. 208, §§ 4 and 5) were invalid and in derogation of the Constitution, and decided to make this a test case.' The case was presented to this court solely on the basis of the original record of pleadings in the Probate Court and on the brief and the oral argument of counsel for the libellant. Counsel contends that the 'two year durational residence requirement' of §§ 4 and 5 'violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.' In support of this contention he relies heavily on the 1969 decision in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, involving a statutory durational residence requirement for eligibility for welfare benefits and the 1972...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fiorentino v. Probate Court
...filing, and the libellant filed a petition for mandamus to compel acceptance of the libel. A similar situation arose in PEACE V. PEACE, MASS. (1972), 288 N.E.2D 602,C where we said that 'such an ex parte presentation without the issuance of process for service on the libellee and an attempt......
-
Menin v. Menin
...143 Mont. 321, 389 P.2d 407; cf. Dade County v. McCrary, 260 So.2d 543 (Fla.App.); Caron v. Betit, 131 Vt. 53, 300 A.2d 618; Peace v. Peace, 288 N.E.2d 602 (Mass.)). 28 L.Ed.2d 113, which was decided in 1971. The Court in Boddie held that it was a violation of due process to deny access to ......