Lea v. Lea
18 N.J. 1, 112 A.2d 540, 1955 N.J. LEXIS 319 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court can exercise in personam jurisdiction over an absent defendant to enter a money judgment for alimony where the defendant is domiciled in that state and receives actual notice via out-of-state personal service. A husband's domicile can be established in the state where he directs his wife and family to establish a home, absent clear proof of a contrary bona fide intention.
Facts:
- The parties were married in 1925 and lived in New York until 1942.
- The husband, an employee of the Federal Immigration Service, was transferred several times, moving the family to Massachusetts and then to Louisiana in 1944.
- In June 1945, at the husband's direction and expense, the wife and their son moved to New York to be near his ailing mother.
- While his family resided in New York, the husband established a sham residence in Arkansas by parking a trailer there, which he used to obtain an ex parte divorce decree on July 22, 1946.
- The husband informed his wife of the Arkansas divorce when she and their son unexpectedly returned to Louisiana in late July 1946.
- On August 31, 1946, the husband married another woman in Louisiana whom he had met while his family was living in New York.
Procedural Posture:
- The husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree from the Chancery Court of Arkansas.
- The wife initiated an action in the New York Supreme Court, which set aside the Arkansas decree, granted the wife a divorce, and awarded her alimony. The husband was personally served with process for this action in Louisiana.
- The wife filed a suit in the Chancery Division of the New Jersey Superior Court to enforce the New York judgment.
- The Chancery Division granted judgment for the wife, finding the New York judgment was entitled to full faith and credit.
- The husband (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 out-of-state personal service on an individual who is domiciled in the forum state satisfy the requirements of due process for a court to exercise in personam jurisdiction and enter a money judgment for alimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Oliphant, J.
Yes. Out-of-state personal service on a defendant domiciled in the forum state provides a constitutional basis for exercising in personam jurisdiction to enter a money judgment. The court first found the Arkansas divorce decree to be a nullity, as the husband's claim of domicile there was a 'mere sham' and 'legal whimsy.' The court then addressed the validity of the New York judgment, which required determining if the husband was domiciled in New York. Citing Milliken v. Meyer, the court reasoned that domicile creates a relationship with a state that makes an individual amenable to suit there, even when absent, provided there is a reasonable method of notice. Personal service on the husband in Louisiana satisfied this due process requirement. The court concluded the husband was domiciled in New York because he had directed his wife and child to establish a home there, and the domicile of a husband follows that of his family in such circumstances unless there is 'clear and convincing proof of a contrary bona fide intention.' Finally, while the New York alimony decree itself was not entitled to full faith and credit for arrears because New York law allows for their modification, the court accepted the parties' subsequent stipulation in the New Jersey proceedings to a $2,000 judgment for those arrears.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle from Milliken v. Meyer that domicile, not just physical presence, is a sufficient basis for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Its primary significance lies in its novel application of the concept of marital domicile, establishing that a husband's domicile can be imputed to the location where he directs his family to reside. This prevents a spouse from evading financial obligations by physically leaving the state while instructing his family to remain, thus creating an important protection for spouses seeking support. The case also clarifies the 'finality' requirement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, demonstrating that sister-state alimony awards are not enforceable for past-due installments if the issuing state retains discretion to modify them.
