Tjaden v. Tjaden
1974 La. App. LEXIS 3219, 294 So.2d 846 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A divorce decree from another state is entitled to full faith and credit if the rendering court had jurisdiction, which is founded on domicile. The party challenging the decree bears a heavy burden to prove the petitioner lacked a bona fide domicile, which requires both physical presence and an intent to remain indefinitely, and a motive to take advantage of favorable divorce laws is not, by itself, sufficient to negate that intent.
Facts:
- Charlene F. Tjaden and Lawrence Owen Tjaden were married and lived with their two sons in Bossier City, Louisiana, where they operated a dance studio together.
- After marital problems arose, Charlene Tjaden discussed the possibility of a Nevada divorce with a Louisiana attorney.
- On December 18, 1972, Charlene Tjaden left Louisiana with her two children and moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where her mother and brother resided.
- She lived continuously in Nevada, staying with her family, from December 1972 until March 14, 1973.
- While in Nevada, Charlene Tjaden retained an attorney and filed for divorce on the grounds of incompatibility.
- A Nevada court granted the divorce decree on March 13, 1973.
- The next day, on March 14, 1973, Charlene Tjaden and her children left Nevada and moved to Marshall, Texas, approximately 40 miles from her former home in Louisiana.
Procedural Posture:
- Charlene F. Tjaden filed suit against Lawrence Owen Tjaden in a Louisiana district court seeking a community property settlement, alimony, and child support following her Nevada divorce.
- Lawrence Tjaden filed an answer, collaterally attacking the Nevada divorce decree as null for lack of jurisdiction, alleging Charlene Tjaden was not a bona fide resident of Nevada.
- The Louisiana district court conducted a trial on the preliminary issues of the divorce's validity and pendente lite child support.
- The district court ruled in favor of Lawrence Tjaden, finding the Nevada divorce invalid because Charlene's actions negated her intent to establish domicile.
- The district court rejected all of Charlene Tjaden's demands based on the invalidity of the divorce.
- Charlene F. Tjaden, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
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 departure from a state on the day immediately following the issuance of a divorce decree conclusively negate the intent required to establish a bona fide domicile, thereby stripping the decree of its entitlement to full faith and credit in another state?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Judge
No. A party's departure from a state immediately following a divorce decree does not conclusively negate the intent required for domicile, and the decree remains entitled to full faith and credit if the challenging party fails to meet their heavy burden of proving a lack of bona fide domicile. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove Charlene Tjaden did not intend to make Nevada her home, at least indefinitely, when she commenced her divorce action. The burden of undermining a foreign decree rests heavily upon the assailant. Domicile requires both actual presence and an intent to remain permanently or indefinitely. While Charlene's departure the day after the decree was granted supports her ex-husband's argument, it is not dispositive. The court emphasized that she had a logical, non-divorce-related reason for moving to Nevada—to live with her mother. Furthermore, she did not return to her former marital domicile in Louisiana but established a new residence in Texas. The court distinguished this case from precedents where parties maintained strong ties to their original state or moved solely for divorce purposes, concluding that Lawrence Tjaden failed to meet his heavy burden of proof.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to successfully mount a collateral attack on a foreign state's divorce decree under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It clarifies that the determination of bona fide domicile is a holistic, fact-intensive inquiry where no single factor, such as immediate departure after a judgment, is dispositive. The court's emphasis on the plaintiff having an independent, legitimate reason for relocating (family ties) provides a significant counterweight to the inference of temporary intent created by a swift departure. This ruling gives more security to out-of-state divorce decrees, making them harder to challenge and providing a clearer roadmap for what courts will consider when evaluating the critical element of intent.
