White v. White
| Court | New York Domestic Relations Court |
| Writing for the Court | GEORGE A. TIMONE |
| Citation | 26 Misc.2d 631,208 N.Y.S.2d 746 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1960 |
| Parties | Ludie WHITE, Petitioner, v. Octavius WHITE, Respondent. |
Page 746
v.
Octavius WHITE, Respondent.
Division, New York County, Central Trial Part.
Page 747
[26 Misc.2d 632] Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, Alice Trubin Zizmor, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel, for petitioner .Ira H. Subin, New York City, for respondent.
GEORGE A. TIMONE, Justice.
This case turns on the validity of an Alabama divorce obtained on July 11, 1960 by the Respondent husband against Petitioner. Even though the Respondent was clearly not a bona fide resident of Alabama in 1960, if the Petitioner then voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Alabama court, the divorce decree cannot be attacked collaterally and is entitled to full faith and credit in this State. LaBarr v. LaBarr, 282 A.D. 583, 125 N.Y.S.2d 714; Boxer v. Boxer, 7 A.D.2d 1001, 184 N.Y.S.2d 303; Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429. If, however, the Petitioner's appearance in the Alabama action was induced by fraud, coercion or duress or was unauthorized, the resulting divorce may be attacked collaterally. Averbuck v. Averbuck, 270 A.D. 116, 58 N.Y.S.2d 392; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 190 Misc. 757, 75 N.Y.S.2d 592; Towers v. Towers, 21 Misc.2d 56, 195 N.Y .S.2d 556; Ticknor v. Ticknor, Sup., 200 N.Y.S.2d 661.
In the instant case the Respondent husband in the City of New York and in the year 1956 induced the Petitioner, a person of very limited understanding, to sign a so-called notice of personal appearance and waiver in an action yet to be commenced in Alabama. This notice of appearance is rather unusual. It is undated and unnotarized. It gives no address for the Petitioner. There is a subscribing witness whose address is given only by street and number, the City which is Detroit, Michigan, being omitted. No complaint was prepared and no action whatever was taken by Respondent on this 1956 notice of appearance until the year 1960.
On May 17, 1960 the Petitioner filed in this Court a petition for support from the Respondent and on June 16, 1960, the return day of the summons, only the Petitioner and Respondent's attorney appeared. On his affidavit of engagement the hearing was adjourned to July 7, 1960. On about July 1, 1960, the Respondent sought to obtain from the Petitioner her signature to a new and presumably up-to-date and more complete notice of appearance. The Petitioner declined to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harges v. Harges
...392; Prime v. Hinton, 244 App.Div. 181, 279 N.Y.S. 37; Stauffer v. Stauffer, 26 Misc.2d 254, 204 N.Y.S.2d 217; Matter of White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746; Ticknor v. Ticknor, 23 Misc.2d 257, 200 N.Y.S.2d 661; Towers v. Towers, 21 Misc.2d 56, 195 N.Y.S.2d 556. Neither the par......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...coercion or duress or unconscionable conduct, as she claims, the Alabama decree may be attacked here. (See Matter of White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746; Ticknor v. Ticknor, 23 Misc.2d 257, 200 N.Y.S.2d 661; Towers v. Towers, 21 Misc.2d 56, 195 N.Y.S.2d Thus, the validity of th......
-
Feinberg v. Feinberg
...cited; see, also, Querze v. Querze, 290 N.Y. 13, 47 N.E.2d 423; Averbuck v. Averbuck, 270 App.Div. 116, 58 N.Y.S.2d 392; White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746.)" (Emphasis And in ordering a new trial, the Court, in defining the defendant's burden of proof, also stated: "......
-
Kantrowitz v. Kantrowitz
...cited. See also, Querze v. Querze, 290 N.Y. 13, 47 N.E.2d 423; Averbuck v. Averbuck, 270 App.Div. 116, 58 N.Y.S.2d 392; White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746.) The testimony here is that the parties were living together as husband and wife when the wife was induced to sign a powe......
-
Harges v. Harges
...392; Prime v. Hinton, 244 App.Div. 181, 279 N.Y.S. 37; Stauffer v. Stauffer, 26 Misc.2d 254, 204 N.Y.S.2d 217; Matter of White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746; Ticknor v. Ticknor, 23 Misc.2d 257, 200 N.Y.S.2d 661; Towers v. Towers, 21 Misc.2d 56, 195 N.Y.S.2d 556. Neither the par......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...coercion or duress or unconscionable conduct, as she claims, the Alabama decree may be attacked here. (See Matter of White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746; Ticknor v. Ticknor, 23 Misc.2d 257, 200 N.Y.S.2d 661; Towers v. Towers, 21 Misc.2d 56, 195 N.Y.S.2d Thus, the validity of th......
-
Feinberg v. Feinberg
...cited; see, also, Querze v. Querze, 290 N.Y. 13, 47 N.E.2d 423; Averbuck v. Averbuck, 270 App.Div. 116, 58 N.Y.S.2d 392; White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746.)" (Emphasis And in ordering a new trial, the Court, in defining the defendant's burden of proof, also stated: "......
-
Kantrowitz v. Kantrowitz
...cited. See also, Querze v. Querze, 290 N.Y. 13, 47 N.E.2d 423; Averbuck v. Averbuck, 270 App.Div. 116, 58 N.Y.S.2d 392; White v. White, 26 Misc.2d 631, 208 N.Y.S.2d 746.) The testimony here is that the parties were living together as husband and wife when the wife was induced to sign a powe......