Slemons v. Slemons
| Decision Date | 31 May 1967 |
| Citation | 280 N.Y.S.2d 276,28 A.D.2d 634 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of Rose SLEMONS, Respondent, v. Claude SLEMONS, Appellant. |
William H. Lynes, Delanson, for appellant.
George Barber, Albany, for respondent.
Before HERLIHY, J.P., and REYNOLDS, AULISI, STALEY and GABRIELLI, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Schenectady County which reinstated a support order of June 9, 1965.
On the 9th day of June, 1965, the Family Court, Schenectady County, made and entered a temporary support order requiring the appellant to pay $40 per week for the support of his wife, the respondent herein. On June 25, 1965, the temporary order was made permanent. On August 5, 1966, the appellant was granted a decree of divorce in the Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe. The respondent did not appear or answer in the divorce action, and was not personally served with the summons and complaint within the State of Nevada.
Upon the petition of the appellant, the Family Court terminated the support order on August 30, 1966, upon the ground that the parties were divorced and the divorce superseded the order of the Family Court. A reargument apparently ensued with the result that the Family Court reversed its decision, and reinstated the support order by order dated October 6, 1966.
The appellant contends that the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction; that the respondent is not his wife; and that the Family Court is without power under the statutes to impose liability for the support of an ex-wife. The validity of the Nevada divorce decree was not questioned in this proceeding.
The question here is whether an order of the Family Court providing for the support of a wife survives a foreign decree of divorce.
The Family Court Act was enacted by the Legislature to implement article 6 of the Constitution. Section 411 of the Family Court Act provides that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over support proceedings under article 4 of the Family Court Act and under article 3--A of the Domestic Relations Law. Section 412 of the Family Court Act and section 32 of the Domestic Relations Law charges the husband with the support of his wife.
It has been held that a foreign divorce obtained without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is valid as to status only, and that the obligation to support is an incident to the marriage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. Gardner
...without personal jurisdiction over the wife (Matter of Eldredge v. Eldredge, 27 A.D.2d 475, 280 N.Y.S.2d 227; Matter of Slemons v. Slemons, 28 A.D.2d 634, 280 N.Y.S.2d 276). It is not, however, necessary for the economic benefits of the marriage to be preserved for the wife that she first o......
-
Frankel v. Frankel
...jurisdiction over the spouse granted support in New York (see, Hunter v. Hunter, 41 A.D.2d 772, 341 N.Y.S.2d 953; Matter of Slemons v. Slemons, 28 A.D.2d 634, 280 N.Y.S.2d 276), a situation not present in this Even if the foreign divorce was bilateral, as it was here, if the divorce court d......
-
Hunter v. Hunter
...affect the exercise of continuing jurisdiction (Matter of Eldredge v. Eldredge, 27 A.D.2d 475, 280 N.Y.S.2d 227; Matter of Slemons v. Slemons, 28 A.D.2d 634, 280 N.Y.S.2d 276). Appellant was in arrears under the New York orders until January 28, 1972. The Family Court therefore had continui......
-
Maguire v. Maguire
...S.Ct. 1360, 1 L.Ed.2d 1456). Nevada was powerless to affect defendant's responsibility to support plaintiff, however (Slemons v. Slemons, 28 A.D.2d 634, 280 N.Y.S.2d 276), and the decree made no mention of this obligation. Furthermore, it is well settled that a wife may apply for and be gra......