White v. White

Citation26 Misc.2d 631,208 N.Y.S.2d 746
PartiesLudie WHITE, Petitioner, v. Octavius WHITE, Respondent.
Decision Date14 December 1960
CourtNew York Domestic Relations Court

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 sign it without consulting counsel, and after so doing refused to sign it or to agree to an Alabama divorce. The Respondent then made no mention of the 1956 notice of appearance.

Undeterred by this refusal and instead of attending the hearing of July 7, 1960, the Respondent took his vacation and went to Alabama from where he wired the Petitioner on July 6, 1960. 'Had to leave town right away due to sickness in the family. Will contact the Court as soon as I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Harges v. Harges
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1965
    ...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......
  • Feinberg v. Feinberg
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • September 26, 1978
    ...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 added.) And in ordering a new trial, the Court, in defining the defendant's burden of proof, also stated: ".......
  • Roberts v. Roberts
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 23, 1965
    ...fraud, 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 validit......
  • Kantrowitz v. Kantrowitz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 19, 1964
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT