Pratt v. Miedema

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: NORTH
• Citation: Pratt v. Miedema, 311 Mich. 64, 18 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 1945)
• Decision Date: 09 April 1945
• Docket Number: No. 6.,6.
• Parties: PRATT v. MIEDEMA.

311 Mich. 64

18 N.W.2d 279

PRATT

v.MIEDEMA.

No. 6.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 9, 1945.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Thaddeus B. taylor, judge.

Suit by Sadie Pratt against William E. Miedema in assumpsit to recover accrued installments of alimony decreed to plaintiff in a Nevada suit for divorce. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Allaben & Wiarda, of Grand Rapids, for defendant and appellant.

Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, of Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellee.

NORTH, Justice.

This suit in assumpsit was brought by plaintiff, Sadie Pratt, formerly Sadie Miedema, to recover accrued installments of alimony decreed to her in a Nevada suit for divorce wherein William E. Miedema was defendant. He appeared in the instant suit and answered plaintiff's declaration. Thereafter on plaintiff's motion and hearing thereof summary judgment for $720 was entered. Defendant has appealed.

As disclosed by his answer, the gist of the defense in the instant suit is defendant's claim that the Nevada decree for divorce and alimony ‘is void and unenforceable in the State of Michigan by reason of its having been obtained by fraud and not being based upon a valid domicile by the plaintiff in said State of Nevada.’ On hearing plaintiff's motion for summary judgment the trial judge in substance held that, on the record before him, the validity of the Nevada decree could not be assailed by defendant in plaintiff's present suit. Under the circumstances about to be noted this holding was correct.

After having been denied a decree of divorce in 1941, in a Michigan suit brought by her, plaintiff shortly went to Nevada and there obtained a pro confesso decree of divorce. Following this there was litigagation between these parties in Michigan in which the validity of plaintiff's Nevada pro confesso decree was adjudicated. Decision was adverse to plaintiff. She thereupon returned to Nevada where she remained until a second suit for divorce was started, heard and a decree granted to her by the Nevada court in May 1943. Based on a provision for alimony in that decree plaintiff asserts her right to recover in the instant suit at law the unpaid installments of alimony due her. Such a suit is authorized in this State by statute. 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 12770 (Stat.Ann. § 25.141).

An admitted fact of prime importance in this suit is that defendant herein appeared by counsel in the second Nevada divorce suit, filed an answer and offered proof; and he therein asserted the identical defense pleaded in the instant case, i.e., that plaintiff did not have a valid domicile in Nevada. Decision in the divorce case was adverse to defendant, and plaintiff obtained a decree as above stated. No appeal was taken from this Nevada decree, nor does it appear there have been any subsequent proceedings in the Nevada trial court. As hereinafter stated, the foregoing constituted final adjudication of the issue of plaintiff's Nevada domicile.

Prior to hearing plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the instant case, defendant by his answer filed therein admitted he was present in the Nevada court at the time plaintiff obtained her decree of divorce and for alimony, that he had appeared in that case ‘for the sole purpose of denying that said plaintiff had secured a valid domicile and residence in Nevada’, and that he has refused to pay the alimony decreed. In support of her motion for summary judgment plaintiff filed certified copies of the following: her amended bill of complaint in the Nevada divorce case, defendant's answer, plaintiff's reply thereto, the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Nevada court, and of her decree obtained in May 1943. Defendant's affidavit of merits filed incident to the motion for summary judgment presented no controverted issue of fact triable in this suit nor any tenable legal defense. Instead he merely asserted the right to have a readjudication in this suit of the defense he had unsuccessfully urged in the Nevada suit for divorce-that p...