Lacks v. Lacks
41 N.Y. 71 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's failure to meet a statutory durational residency requirement in a divorce action is an error relating to a substantive element of the cause of action, not a defect in the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, such an error does not render a final judgment of divorce void or subject to collateral attack years after all direct appeals have been exhausted.
Facts:
- The parties were married in New York in 1938.
- Beginning in 1953, the couple engaged in a series of bitter litigations.
- On August 10, 1965, the husband initiated an action for separation against the wife in New York.
- During the course of the litigation, New York amended its Domestic Relations Law to liberalize the grounds for divorce but also imposed a new durational residency requirement.
- Throughout the years of the various legal disputes, the husband moved between Puerto Rico, France, New York, and Florida.
- After the final judgment of divorce was entered and all appeals were exhausted, the husband remarried.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff husband sued defendant wife for separation in the New York Supreme Court in 1965.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the husband appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed and ordered a new trial.
- At the second trial, the husband amended his claim to seek a divorce, which the Supreme Court granted on March 16, 1970.
- The wife appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the divorce judgment on October 26, 1972.
- Both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) denied the wife leave for further appeal, making the judgment final.
- In 1975, the wife filed a postjudgment motion in the Supreme Court (Special Term) to vacate the judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Special Term granted the wife's motion, vacating the divorce judgment.
- The husband appealed to the Appellate Division, which modified the order by denying the wife's motion and reinstating the divorce.
- The wife then appealed the Appellate Division's reinstatement of the divorce judgment to the Court of Appeals.
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 party's failure to satisfy a statutory durational residency requirement in a divorce action deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, thereby rendering the final judgment of divorce void and subject to vacatur at any time?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Breitel
No, a failure to satisfy a statutory durational residency requirement does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The residency requirement is a substantive element of the cause of action for divorce, not a limitation on the court's competence to adjudicate matrimonial cases. The New York Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction with the constitutional power to hear matrimonial actions. An error in determining whether a substantive element like residency has been met is an error of law or fact, which must be challenged on direct appeal. It is not a jurisdictional defect that renders a judgment void and open to collateral attack years later. To hold otherwise would undermine the doctrine of res judicata and the finality of judgments, as parties could indefinitely challenge settled cases on grounds that should have been raised during the original litigation.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification on the nature of subject matter jurisdiction, distinguishing it from substantive elements of a claim. It significantly strengthens the finality of judgments and the doctrine of res judicata by narrowing the scope of what constitutes a 'jurisdictional' defect that can void a final judgment. By classifying statutory prerequisites like residency requirements as matters for the court to decide on the merits, the holding prevents parties from using a post-judgment collateral attack to remedy an error they should have addressed on direct appeal. This provides stability in the law, particularly in matrimonial cases where parties rely on the finality of a divorce decree to reorder their lives.
