Spindel v. Spindel

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: Rothenberg & Atkins, New York City, for defendant, by Michael B. Atkins, New York City
• Citation: Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F.Supp. 797 (E.D. N.Y. 1968)
• Decision Date: 11 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 67 C 693.,67 C 693.
• Parties: Eleanor Carson SPINDEL, Plaintiff, v. Sheldon M. SPINDEL, Defendant.

283 F. Supp. 797

Eleanor Carson SPINDEL, Plaintiff, v. Sheldon M. SPINDEL, Defendant.

No. 67 C 693.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

April 11, 1968.

Davis and Cox, New York City, for plaintiff, Lola S. Lea, New York City, of counsel.

Rothenberg & Atkins, New York City, for defendant, by Michael B. Atkins, New York City.

OPINION AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a resident of New Mexico, alleges that defendant, a New York resident, fraudulently induced her to marry him and then fraudulently procured a Mexican divorce dissolving their marriage. She seeks $500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and a declaratory judgment that the Mexican divorce decree is invalid. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated on the diverse citizenship of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendant moves to dismiss (1) for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the case involves "domestic relations" and that the requisite jurisdictional amount is lacking, and (2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons indicated below, the motion to dismiss is denied.

Plaintiff and defendant, then New York residents, married each other in 1965 in Connecticut. She alleges that she spurned marriage proposals from others relying on defendant's representations that he, a man of substantial wealth, would establish a "suitable marital home" for herself and her three children and would support them "in a manner appropriate for the * * * family of a man of defendant's wealth and station."

Plaintiff then learned, she tells us, that defendant married her only for the purpose of gaining economic benefits, primarily income tax advantages. After the marriage, defendant purportedly refused to live with plaintiff and her children or to support them. As a result of defendant's failure to perform, plaintiff left New York and moved to New Mexico to find other means of providing for herself and her children.

Defendant then, the complaint informs us, embarked upon a campaign to coerce plaintiff into consenting to a Mexican divorce and a disadvantageous settlement. He is alleged to have circulated libelous and scandalous charges about her and, in general, to have "engaged in a course of conduct designed to embarrass and harass her." Bowing to this pressure, on March 26, 1967, plaintiff agreed to a Mexican divorce and executed a power of attorney, furnished to her by her own counsel, authorizing an unknown Mexican lawyer to appear on her behalf in the Mexican courts. In return, defendant gave plaintiff and her attorney a total of $7,000.

Two days later, on March 28, 1967, after conferring with another lawyer, plaintiff allegedly revoked the power of attorney and immediately informed her former counsel of this action. According to plaintiff, "defendant knew or should have known of such revocation." Nevertheless, subsequent to notice of revocation, on March 31, 1967, defendant appeared before the Civil Court of the Bravos District, State of Chihuahua, Republic of Mexico, and obtained what purports to be a decree of divorce from plaintiff.

I. JURISDICTION

Section 1332 of title 28 of the United States Code grants the district courts jurisdiction in (1) a "civil action," involving (2) a "controversy," (3) exceeding the "value of $10,000," (4) between "citizens of different states." This is a civil action; the subject matter involves fraud and powers of attorney, both of which are "common heads of equity jurisdiction." Terry v. Sharon, 131 U.S. 40, 48, 9 S.Ct. 705, 707, 33 L.Ed. 94 (1889). There is a legal dispute between the parties and the plaintiff seeks more than $10,000. The parties, even if still married, have domiciles in different states and have diverse citizenship. There would thus appear to be basis for the exercise of our diversity jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, the defendant argues, with considerable force, that the federal courts' lack of subject matter competence — jurisdiction in matrimonial cases — deprives this Court of the power to grant plaintiff any relief. To determine the validity of his contention with respect to the request for a declaration of invalidity of the Mexican divorce, we turn first to a brief review of the Supreme Court cases which are said to stand for the proposition that the defendant advances (IA1, p. 800, infra), and, second, to reasons the Supreme Court precedents are not applicable to the instant case which involves, not a request for a divorce, but a determination of the invalidity of a divorce (IA2, p. 805, infra). We then analyze defendant's suggestion that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's tort claim (IB, p. 812, infra). Finally, we consider whether the amount in controversy meets the statutory requirements (IC, p. 812, infra) and whether there is diversity of citizenship (ID, p. 812, infra). Having considered the jurisdictional problems, we will then turn to the question whether, under applicable New York substantive law, plaintiff has stated a claim for declaratory relief (IIA, p. 813, infra) and for damages in tort (IIB, p. 813, infra).

A. Declaration of Invalidity of Divorce

1. Supreme Court Cases on Divorce Jurisdiction

Beginning in 1859, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the federal courts lack divorce jurisdiction. See Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. (How. 21) 582, 16 L.Ed. 226 (1859); Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 20 S.Ct. 58, 44 L.Ed. 115 (1899); De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed. 765 (1906); State of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930). See also In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890). Nevertheless, the Court has heard appeals in divorce actions from territorial courts (Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 20 S.Ct. 58, 44 L.Ed. 115 (1899); De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed. 765 (1906)) and a similar jurisdiction has been exercised by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. E. g., Bottomley v. Bottomley, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 262 F.2d 23 (1958); Moncure v. Moncure, 51 App. D.C. 292, 278 F. 1005 (1922). See also Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 581, n. 54, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962).

If a federal "constitutional court" (Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 534, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962)) is competent to enforce policy on matrimonial status when it is laid down by a territorial legislature or Congress, there appears to be no constitutional compulsion to find lack of competence to apply analogous state substantive law in a diversity case. The Supreme Court's disclaimer of divorce jurisdiction in diversity cases thus seems predicated upon a implied limiting construction of the statute granting Federal District Courts jurisdiction in diversity cases.

The Constitution provides that all the judicial power exercisable by the sovereign power, the United States, may be granted to the District Courts by Congress. Section 1 of Article III plainly states:

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (Emphasis supplied.)

The breadth of this power is particularly evident in diversity cases, for the Constitution uses the most all encompassing language to describe this branch of jurisdiction. Section 2 of Article III provides:

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." (Emphasis supplied.)

Of the three different phrases defining jurisdiction — "Cases, in Law and Equity," "Cases" and "Controversies," the last, and most general in scope, covers diversity jurisdiction. But cf. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 57 S.Ct. 461, 300 U.S. 227, 239, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). Thus, under the language of the Constitution, there need only be a controversy for a diversity case to be within the judicial power; neither a case in law or equity nor a case is required.

Congress, while generous, did not grant to the inferior courts it established all the power it might have granted to hear "Controversies * * * between Citizens of different States." See generally, Warren, New Light on The History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv.L.Rev. 49, 67-69 (1923). Contra, Vestal and Foster, Implied Limitations on the Diversity Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, 41 Minn.L.Rev. 1 (1956); Wright, Federal Courts 72-73 (1963). The basic Congressional grant was not to decide "Controversies" but, rather, "suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity." See Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 104-105, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945); Gordon v. Washington, 295 U.S. 30, 36-37, 55 S.Ct. 584, 79 L.Ed. 1282 (1935). Moreover, there was a requirement that there be a minimum sum in controversy and there was significant limiting language describing required diversity of citizenship. Cf. United Steelworkers of America, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145, 148, 86 S.Ct. 272, 274, 15 L.Ed.2d 217 (1965) (Congress expanded the diversity jurisdiction in 1875 "by deleting the requirement imposed in 1789 that one of the parties must be a citizen of the forum State"); 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (interpleader). The 1789 statute provided:

"* * * The circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent

...