Everett v. Everett
345 So. 2d 586 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A divorce obtained in a foreign country where neither spouse is domiciled is invalid in Louisiana. A spouse who consents to such an invalid divorce is not estopped from later seeking a valid divorce on grounds of adultery, particularly where the representation of the foreign divorce's validity came from a third-party attorney and not the spouse themselves.
Facts:
- In July 1975, Nancy Everett and Curtis Everett jointly consulted an attorney for the purpose of obtaining a quick divorce.
- The attorney advised them to proceed with a divorce in the Dominican Republic and prepared a power of attorney, which Mrs. Everett signed, authorizing a Dominican lawyer to represent her.
- The couple also entered into a community property settlement agreement.
- On July 30, 1975, Mr. Everett secured the divorce in the Dominican Republic as planned.
- Believing he was single, Mr. Everett took another woman on a trip to Europe in August 1975.
- In September 1975, private detectives observed Mr. Everett and the other woman spending two entire nights together alone in his home.
- In October 1975, the woman moved in to live with Mr. Everett.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Nancy Riddle Everett sued Curtis H. Everett for divorce in a Louisiana trial court, alleging adultery.
- The trial court found that the Dominican Republic divorce the parties had obtained was invalid.
- However, the trial court dismissed Mrs. Everett's suit, ruling that she was estopped from bringing the action because she had consented to the foreign divorce.
- The trial court also found in the alternative that the evidence was insufficient to prove adultery.
- Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. Mrs. Everett (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the dismissal of her case, and Mr. Everett (defendant-appellee) appealed the ruling that the foreign divorce was invalid.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a spouse who consents to and participates in securing an invalid foreign divorce estopped from later suing for divorce on grounds of adultery committed by the other spouse who acted in reliance on the invalid divorce's validity?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No. A spouse who consents to an invalid foreign divorce is not estopped from later suing for divorce on grounds of adultery. First, the Dominican Republic divorce is invalid because Louisiana courts, like those in most states, require at least one party to have a bona fide domicile in the jurisdiction granting a divorce, which was not the case here. Second, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply because a necessary element is missing. Estoppel requires 1) a representation by conduct or word, 2) justifiable reliance, and 3) a detrimental change in position. Here, the representation that the divorce was valid was made by the attorney consulted by both parties, not by Mrs. Everett. Mr. Everett relied on the attorney's legal advice, not a representation from his wife. Furthermore, the state has a strong public interest in the marital status of its citizens, which weighs against applying estoppel to prevent a party from seeking a valid divorce when grounds exist. Finally, the evidence of adultery was sufficient; Mr. Everett's admission that the co-respondent spent two nights alone with him in his home, combined with the circumstances of their amorous affair, created a strong inference of adultery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Louisiana's strict jurisdictional requirement of domicile for recognizing divorces, refusing to adopt the more lenient approach of states like New York regarding foreign decrees. It significantly limits the application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel in divorce proceedings by clarifying that a spouse's consent to an invalid divorce does not preclude them from later suing on grounds of adultery. The ruling protects the state's interest in clearly defining marital status and prevents parties from being trapped in a legal limbo created by reliance on invalid "quickie" divorces, placing the risk of relying on such decrees squarely on the parties involved.
