Wilkes v. Wilkes
| Decision Date | 16 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 290. |
| Citation | 16 So.2d 15,245 Ala. 54 |
| Parties | WILKES v. WILKES. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; D. C. Halstead Judge.
The decree appealed from recites in part that
W. L. Lee and Alto V. Lee, III, both of Dothan, for appellant.
John W. Rish, of Dothan, for appellee.
Every state has the sovereign power to regulate and define by law the marital status of its citizens; and the courts of each state have jurisdiction to grant decrees of divorce in favor of spouse there domiciled against the spouse domiciled in another state, upon constructive service, followed by averment and proof pursuant to the laws of the forum, providing due process of law. Such a decree of divorce is valid in all the states under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States.
But where husband and wife are both domiciled in Alabama and the husband "remove[s] to another state with no animus movendi, and merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, and intending to remain no longer than was necessary to accomplish his purpose, such a divorce would be invalid in this state." Jenkins v. Jenkins, 239 Ala. 141, 194 So. 493, 494.
The courts of a state can have no jurisdiction over the marital status of persons, neither of whom is domiciled there. A simulated or concocted case based on false allegations and proof, although regular on the face of the proceedings, is a fraud on the court granting the divorce, as well as the adverse party having no actual notice and consequent opportunity to defend. Such a decree has no extraterritorial effect and is subject to challenge in the domicile of both parties in a direct proceeding inter partes. These principles have been the declared law of Alabama since the well-reasoned opinion in Thompson v. State, 28 Ala. 12. See Thompson v. Thompson, 91 Ala. 591, 8 So. 419, 11 L.R.A. 443; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 239 Ala. 141, 194 So. 493; Fox v. Fox, 235 Ala. 338, 179 So. 237; Wells v. Wells, 230 Ala. 430, 161 So. 794.
In the instant case averments and proof supported the finding of the trial court to the effect that the appellant, husband acquired no bona fide domicile in the State of Florida and the decree of divorce obtained by him in Florida was subject to be decreed invalid in the State of Alabama, both husband and wife having all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartigan v. Hartigan
...that the Alabama courts have no jurisdiction over the marital status of the parties if neither was domiciled in Alabama. Wilkes v. Wilkes, 245 Ala. 54, 16 So.2d 15; Gee v. Gee, 252 Ala. 103, 39 So.2d 406. Such jurisdiction could not be conferred on the court even with the parties' consent. ......
-
Donnell v. Howell
...551, 45 L.Ed. 804; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, 23 S.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Sherrer v. Sherrer, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 1097 ; Wilkes v. Wilkes, 245 Ala. 54, 16 So.2d 15. See also The Alabama Lawyer, Volume eight, p. 37. This is true because domicile in the state gives the court jurisdiction of ......
-
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Lewis, Civ. A. No. 68-55.
...jurisdiction on the courts of that state to grant a divorce. * * * * * * "Before enactment of the statute, we said in Wilkes v. Wilkes, 245 Ala. 54, 16 So.2d 15, 16, that `The courts of a state can have no jurisdiction over the marital status of persons, neither of whom is domiciled there' ......
-
Guerieri v. Guerieri
...Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, 23 S.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Sherrer v. Sherrer, (334 U.S. 343,) 68 S.Ct. 1087, 1097, (92 L.Ed. 1429); Wilkes v. Wilkes, 245 Ala. 54, 16 So.2d 15. * * * * * it is recognized that unless one of the parties has a residence or domicile within the state, the parties cannot ......