Smith v. Smith

• Decision Date: 21 March 1978
• Citation: 174 Conn. 434,389 A.2d 756
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Louise G. SMITH v. Delavan Palmer SMITH.

Page 756

389 A.2d 756

174 Conn. 434

Louise G. SMITH v. Delavan Palmer SMITH.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 12, 1977.

Decided March 21, 1978.

Robert V. Cimmino, New Milford, and, of the New York and Florida bars, Martin J. Gersten, New York City, with whom, on the brief, was Jacob B. Gersten, New York City, of the New York bar, for the appellant (plaintiff).

John P. Febbroriello, Torrington, with whom, on the brief, was Peter C. Herbst, Canaan, for the appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C. J., and COTTER, LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI and LONGO, JJ.

COTTER, Associate Justice.

The defendant filed a plea in abatement in the plaintiff's action for a dissolution of marriage, alimony, attorney's fees and other equitable relief, claiming that the court was without jurisdiction because the marriage had been dissolved by a judgment of divorce granted by the Supreme Court of the State of New York. In her answer and special defense to the defendant's plea, the plaintiff challenged the validity of the New York judgment claiming lack of notice and alleging that it "was obtained by fraud, collusion, perjury and/or material misrepresentations" of the defendant. The trial court sustained the defendant's plea in abatement, dismissed the plaintiff's action, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The finding, which is not subject to material correction, reveals the following: The parties were married in Georgia in 1967 and subsequently moved to West Cornwall, Connecticut, where they resided in 1971. On January 8, 1973, they separated and the plaintiff moved to 269 West 72nd Street in New York City; later she moved, on January 31, 1973, with the defendant's knowledge, to 170 Thompson Street in New York City; and thereafter the defendant failed in all attempts to locate her. On April 10, 1974, the defendant filed an action for divorce in New York; notice of the action was given by publication in the Poughkeepsie Journal and by mail to the West 72nd Street address. The plaintiff filed this action on May 22, 1974, and abode service was made upon the defendant at the West Cornwall address. On June 12, 1974, the defendant testified before the New York court that he had no knowledge of any pending actions for divorce in any other state and that he was, and had been since July of 1971, a resident of New York state. An ex parte divorce was granted to him on June 14, 1974, by the New York court.

The basis of the plaintiff's collateral attack upon the New York judgment was that the foreign divorce was obtained by the defendant's fraudulent statements "and/or material misrepresentations" to that court regarding his New York residency, his lack of knowledge of the suit instituted by the plaintiff in Connecticut, and his inability to ascertain the plaintiff's whereabouts, which fact resulted in her failure to receive notice of the proceedings to which she was a party. From the facts found, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not sustained her burden of proving the invalidity of the New York decree; the court therefore ruled that the New York judgment was entitled to full faith and credit, sustained the plea in abatement and dismissed the plaintiff's action.

A valid final judgment or decree of divorce entered by the New York court having jurisdiction to do so is entitled to full faith and credit. U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (as to manner of proof); Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 585, 71 S.Ct. 474, 95 L.Ed. 552; Spalding v. Spalding, 171 Conn. 220, 225, 368 A.2d 14; see annot.,28 A.L.R.2d 1303. Proper notice to the defendant, either by personal service of process or, if she is a nonresident, by publication or other constructive service as required by New York law, is essential to give the New York court jurisdiction to grant a valid divorce so as to entitle its decree to full faith and credit in Connecticut. Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U.S. 551, 562-63, 33 S.Ct. 129, 57 L.Ed. 347; Atherton v. Atherton, 181 U.S. 155, 21 S.Ct. 544, 45 L.Ed. 794; Gildersleeve v. Gildersleeve, 88 Conn. 689, 695, 92 A. 684; 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 947-950. The judgment is conclusive upon the merits in another state only if the first state had power to pass on the merits, that is, had jurisdiction to render the judgment. Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 229, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577, rehearing denied, 325 U.S. 895, 65 S.Ct. 1560, 89 L.Ed. 2006. Although the plaintiff alleges that the decree was obtained by the defendant's "fraud and/or misrepresentations" which induced the New York court erroneously to believe that it had jurisdiction, the validity of that judgment is dependent upon the jurisdiction of the court and not upon the independent ground of perjury or fraud, except as it might affect the New York court's jurisdiction to render a decree. See Finn v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, 141 So.2d 852 (La.App.); 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 480, 957.

Under the full faith and credit clause, our review of the New York court's jurisdiction is somewhat restricted in that we are under a duty to accord prima facie validity to a divorce decree of a foreign state; Esenwein v. Commonwealth, 325 U.S. 279, 280, 65 S.Ct. 1118, 89 L.Ed. 1608; since a judgment presumes jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons. Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126, 128, 72 S.Ct. 157, 96 L.Ed. 146. To overcome this presumption, the burden of undermining the decree of a sister state "rests heavily upon the assailant." Cook v. Cook,supra, 128, 92 S.Ct. 157; Williams v. North Carolina, supra, 325 U.S. at 234, 65 S.Ct. 1092. The trial court in the present action concluded that the plaintiff did not sustain her burden of proving that, at the institution of the New York proceedings, the defendant had not satisfied the one-year residency requirement essential for the New York court to obtain jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage. ¹ Spalding v. Spalding, supra; White v. White, 138 Conn. 1, 8, 81 A.2d 450. As the trier of facts, the trial court must determine what facts have been proven; Cappiello v. Haselman,154 Conn. 490, 491, 227 A.2d 79; and its conclusions which are logically supported by the finding must stand. Freccia v. Martin, 163 Conn. 160, 164, 302 A.2d 280.

The plaintiff claims that in 1973 the defendant resided in West Cornwall, Connecticut, and therefore had not satisfied the requirement of a one-year residency in New York. In the New York court, however, the defendant testified that he had been a resident of New York state since July of 1971. The term "residence," as used in the provisions of New York's Domestic Relations Law relating to residence requirements relative to the maintenance of divorce actions, "has been construed to be synonymous with the term 'domicile' "; Usher v. Usher, 41 A.D.2d 368, 370, 343 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215; see Gildersleeve v. Gildersleeve, supra, 88 Conn. at 692, 92 A. 684; and " domicil" consists of actual residence coupled with the intention of permanently remaining. Adame v. Adame, 154 Conn. 389, 391, 225 A.2d 188; Cocron v. Cocron, 84 Misc.2d 335, 341, 375 N.Y.S.2d 797; see 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 246, 247. "(A) person may have simultaneously two or more residence addresses but only one domicil at any one time. Clegg v. Bishop,105 Conn. 564, 570, 136 A. 102." Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 A.2d 795.

The plaintiff also argues that the New York address given by the defendant in the New York proceeding was the address of his law office and not his residence. However, it was plaintiff's burden to establish this fact by the evidence presented. Cook v. Cook, supra. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff on this issue was her testimony that there was no room to live at that New York address, that some mutual friends told her he resided in West Cornwall, and that the telephone operator gave her the Connecticut number as the defendant's residence number. On the basis of this testimony the trial court was not compelled to conclude that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the defendant was not domiciled in New York. Nor was the trial court in error in refusing to add to its finding the fact that the defendant did not actually reside in New York, since this fact is neither admitted nor undisputed by the defendant. Practice Book § 628. Other facts relied upon by the plaintiff in her brief intended to establish that the defendant was at all times pertinent hereto a Connecticut resident cannot be added to the finding since there was no assignment of error seeking to correct the finding by the addition of these facts. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Sciortino, 138 Conn. 690, 692, 88 A.2d 379; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 172. The conclusion of the trial court is logically supported by the findings made and therefore cannot be disturbed. Connecticut Coke Co. v. New Haven, 169 Conn. 663, 675, 364 A.2d 178.

The plaintiff further claims that the New York court's exercise of jurisdiction was improperly based upon the defendant's allegedly false testimony regarding his lack of knowledge of the pendency of the instant action commenced by the plaintiff. As with many of the factual allegations contained in the plaintiff's brief, relevant draft findings in this regard were not submitted to the trial court. The court's conclusion that the New York decree was entitled to full faith and credit can only be reviewed by this court on the basis of a corrected finding. Terrace Estates v. New Britain, 166 Conn. 469, 471, 352 A.2d 303. Thus, since the plaintiff does not seek to add to the finding material facts supporting this claim, we are limited to the facts found by the trial court. McCoy v. Raucci, 156 Conn. 115, 119, 239 A.2d 689.

The plaintiff's final argument in support of her claim that the court erred in giving full faith and credit to the New York judgment alleges a denial of due process as a result of the method of service used to...