Succession of Bickham
518 So.2d 482, 1988 WL 1913 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Full Faith and Credit Clause bars a party from collaterally attacking a foreign divorce decree on jurisdictional grounds in a sister state if the party participated in the foreign proceeding, had a full opportunity to contest the jurisdictional issues, and the decree is not susceptible to such an attack in the state that rendered it.
Facts:
- Talmadge D. Bickham, Jr. and Marie Bickham, a married couple, established their matrimonial domicile in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
- In 1973 or 1974, Talmadge admitted to Marie that he was having an affair with Pamela Kellum Mustin.
- At Talmadge's request, Marie signed a separation agreement, property settlement, and a renunciation of community property in April 1974.
- In May 1974, Talmadge filed for divorce in Arkansas, falsely alleging that he had been a resident of Ashley County, Arkansas for more than ninety days.
- On July 8, 1974, Marie signed a notarized document titled 'Waiver, Entry of Appearance and Answer' for the Arkansas divorce proceeding, which was then filed with the Arkansas court.
- Marie learned of the Arkansas divorce decree in December 1974, on the same day Talmadge informed her he had married Pamela.
- Despite the divorce and Talmadge's new marriage, he and Marie continued to manage their farm together, maintain joint bank accounts, and file joint income tax returns.
- Talmadge and Marie subsequently remarried each other twice, once in December 1976 and again in March 1977, after realizing his divorce from Pamela was not final at the time of their first remarriage.
Procedural Posture:
- After Talmadge D. Bickham, Jr.'s death in 1982, Marie Bickham opened his succession in a Louisiana district court and was confirmed as executrix.
- In 1985, Marie filed a petition in the succession proceeding, requesting the court to declare the 1974 Arkansas divorce decree null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
- The decedent's heirs filed exceptions, including res judicata, arguing the divorce was final and could not be re-litigated.
- The district court (trial court) dismissed the heirs' exceptions and declared the Arkansas divorce judgment null and void.
- The heirs (appellants) appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the decision that the Arkansas divorce was invalid.
- The heirs then sought review from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 the Full Faith and Credit Clause bar a party from collaterally attacking an out-of-state divorce decree for lack of jurisdiction when that party entered an appearance in the foreign proceeding, had a full opportunity to contest jurisdiction, and the decree is not susceptible to such an attack in the rendering state?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Dixon
Yes. The Full Faith and Credit Clause bars a party from collaterally attacking an out-of-state divorce decree under these circumstances. By signing and filing the 'Waiver, Entry of Appearance and Answer,' Marie Bickham participated in the Arkansas divorce proceeding. This participation afforded her a full opportunity to contest the jurisdictional issue of Talmadge's residency, even though she chose not to do so. Under the precedent set by Sherrer v. Sherrer and Johnson v. Muelberger, such participation precludes a later collateral attack in a sister state. Furthermore, Arkansas law itself would not permit Marie to attack the decree, as she either knew of the potential fraud on the court regarding residency and participated in it, or she waited an unreasonable amount of time (ten years) to challenge the judgment. Because the decree is final and unchallengeable in Arkansas, Louisiana must give it full faith and credit.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle of finality in judgments, particularly in the context of interstate divorces. The court's decision clarifies that 'participation' in a foreign proceeding, sufficient to bar a later collateral attack, does not require active litigation; merely filing a formal entry of appearance is enough. This ruling prevents individuals from acquiescing to a potentially fraudulent out-of-state divorce for convenience and then later challenging its validity to gain a strategic advantage, such as claiming inheritance rights as a surviving spouse. It solidifies the application of the Sherrer v. Sherrer doctrine in Louisiana, emphasizing that once a party submits to a court's jurisdiction, they are estopped from later denying it.
