Carr v. Carr
413 N.Y.S.2d 305, 385 N.E.2d 1234, 46 N.Y.2d 270 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New York courts lack personal or in rem jurisdiction over a nonresident second spouse who has no minimum contacts with the state, when a first spouse seeks a declaration of her marital status following the death of the common husband, and the primary purpose of the action is to adjudicate property rights rather than the ongoing marital relationship.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Ann Carr married Paul Carr in Nevada on November 16, 1956.
- Ann and Paul lived in various countries due to Paul's tenure with the United States Foreign Service.
- In 1965, Ann departed the marital residence in Honduras and returned to the United States, eventually settling in New York.
- Approximately two years after Ann’s departure, Paul obtained an ex parte Honduran divorce on the ground of abandonment.
- Defendant Barbara Carr has resided continuously in California since 1962 and had no contacts with New York State during the relevant time frame.
- Barbara Carr claims she and Paul Carr were joined in matrimony in Nevada on December 3, 1974.
- Paul Carr died in 1975.
- Barbara applied for survivor benefits furnished by the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Ann Carr commenced an action seeking to invalidate a Honduran divorce and to declare herself the lawful surviving spouse of Paul Carr.
- Defendant Barbara Carr moved to dismiss the action.
- Special Term, the trial court, granted Barbara Carr's motion to dismiss, finding no basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over her.
- The Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, reversed Special Term's decision, sustaining the purported exercise of jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York court have personal or in rem jurisdiction over a nonresident second wife who has no minimum contacts with New York, when the first wife, a New York resident, seeks a declaration of the validity of her first marriage after the husband's death, thereby challenging the second wife's marital status and claim to survivor benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooke, J.
No, a New York court does not have personal or in rem jurisdiction over a nonresident second wife under these circumstances. The court held that the fiction of the marital 'res,' which traditionally provides a basis for in rem jurisdiction in divorce proceedings, ceases to have legal vitality or substance after the death of one spouse. This is especially true when the purpose of the action shifts from adjudicating the interpersonal relations of the marriage to primarily determining property rights, such as survivor benefits, and involves a third party over whom the forum court has no personal jurisdiction. The court found no precedent for using the marital 'res' as a jurisdictional basis binding on third parties without personal jurisdiction after a spouse's death. Furthermore, New York lacked personal jurisdiction over Barbara Carr because she had no contacts with the state, did not engage in any activity there, and did not 'purposefully derive benefits from any activities relating to' New York, as required by the Due Process Clause for asserting personal jurisdiction, citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington and Kulko v. California Superior Ct.
Dissenting - Chief Judge Breitel and Wachtler, J.
Yes, the New York court should have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the first marriage. The dissenting judges argued that, under traditional principles, when the first wife (Ann) came to New York, she 'brought with her the 'res' of the marriage,' thereby establishing in rem jurisdiction in New York to determine the validity of her first marriage. They explicitly stated that they did not rely on in personam jurisdiction over Barbara. The dissent contended that the death of the husband should not dissolve the 'res' for all purposes, as important legal rights, such as intestate shares or survivor benefits, accrue to a spouse even after death. To rule otherwise, they argued, would unrealistically prevent a New York domiciliary from seeking a declaration in New York regarding the validity of her marriage for estate purposes.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of 'in rem' jurisdiction based on a marital 'res,' particularly after the death of one spouse. It clarifies that while traditional status adjudications might not always require personal jurisdiction over both parties, disputes primarily concerning property rights and involving a deceased spouse cannot rely on the marital 'res' fiction to assert jurisdiction over a non-resident third party without minimum contacts. The decision reinforces the constitutional due process requirements for personal jurisdiction, even in cases touching upon marital status, when the underlying goal is to affect property or survivor benefits rather than the ongoing marital relationship.
