Williams v. North Carolina (Williams I)
317 U.S. 287 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, a divorce decree granted by a state to one of its domiciliaries must be respected in every other state, even if the defendant spouse was not served within the jurisdiction and did not appear in the proceeding.
Facts:
- In 1916, O.B. Williams married Carrie Wyke, and they lived together in North Carolina.
- In 1920, Lillie Hendrix married Thomas Hendrix, and they also lived together in North Carolina.
- In May 1940, Williams and Hendrix left their respective spouses and moved to Las Vegas, Nevada.
- After residing in Nevada for six weeks, Williams and Hendrix each filed for divorce against their spouses in North Carolina.
- The North Carolina spouses, Carrie Wyke and Thomas Hendrix, were not personally served with process in Nevada and did not appear in the Nevada court proceedings.
- A Nevada court granted divorces to both Williams and Hendrix, finding that each was a bona fide resident of Nevada.
- Immediately after the second divorce was granted on October 4, 1940, Williams and Hendrix married each other in Nevada.
- Shortly thereafter, Williams and Hendrix returned to North Carolina and lived together as a married couple.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of North Carolina indicted O.B. Williams and Lillie Hendrix for bigamous cohabitation in a state trial court.
- At trial, the defendants' Nevada divorce decrees were not recognized as a valid defense, and the jury was instructed that the decrees were not valid in North Carolina.
- A jury found Williams and Hendrix guilty.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the convictions, holding that under the precedent of Haddock v. Haddock, it was not required to give full faith and credit to the Nevada decrees.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
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 require North Carolina to recognize divorce decrees granted by a Nevada court, where the petitioners had established domicile in Nevada but their non-resident spouses were not personally served in Nevada and did not appear in the actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires North Carolina to recognize the Nevada divorce decrees. A divorce decree granted by a state that has jurisdiction over the marital status of the parties is entitled to full faith and credit throughout the nation. Jurisdiction over the marital status, or the res, is established by the domicile of the plaintiff within the state. Each state has a legitimate interest in the marital status of its domiciliaries and has the power to alter that status, even if the other spouse is absent, provided the requirements of procedural due process are met. This decision explicitly overrules Haddock v. Haddock, which improperly created a distinction based on matrimonial domicile and the fault of the parties, concepts irrelevant to a state's jurisdictional power. To allow one state to refuse recognition of another's valid divorce decree would create a confusing and socially damaging situation where individuals could be considered married in one state and divorced in another, leading to polygamous marriages and questions of legitimacy for children.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter
Yes, North Carolina must recognize the Nevada decrees. The Constitution reserves authority over marriage and divorce to the states, and the Supreme Court is not authorized to create a uniform national divorce law. The Court's only role is to enforce the Full Faith and Credit Clause for judgments rendered in accordance with due process. Because the Nevada decrees are valid and binding in Nevada and their due process validity was not challenged, all other states must respect them. The prior rule in Haddock v. Haddock created arbitrary and unworkable distinctions, and its overruling properly restores the constitutional mandate that a judgment binding in one state is binding in every other state.
Dissenting - Justice Murphy
No, North Carolina should not be compelled to recognize the Nevada decrees. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not an absolute command and should be applied flexibly, balancing the governmental interests of each state. North Carolina has a paramount interest in the marital status of its citizens, an interest which should not be automatically overridden by Nevada's more lax policy. The record strongly suggests that the petitioners did not acquire a bona fide domicile in Nevada; their brief stay was solely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. Without a good-faith domicile, Nevada lacked the jurisdiction necessary to grant a divorce that is entitled to extraterritorial effect, and North Carolina is free to disregard the decrees.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
No, the Nevada divorce decrees should not be forced upon North Carolina. This decision effectively repeals the divorce laws of all states and substitutes the law of Nevada for any couple where one spouse can afford a trip there. To dissolve a marriage without personal service or an appearance by the absent spouse violates due process by depriving them of significant marital rights without a proper hearing. The majority's reliance on the petitioners' supposed 'domicile' is unfounded, as their six-week stay in an auto court was a clear sham. The Court should not force North Carolina to recognize these judgments, which lack a legitimate jurisdictional basis and undermine North Carolina's sovereign power to regulate the marital status of its own long-term residents.
Analysis:
This decision, known as Williams I, fundamentally altered American family law by overruling Haddock v. Haddock and expanding the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in divorce cases. It established that an ex parte divorce (one where only one spouse is before the court) from a state where the plaintiff is domiciled must be recognized nationwide. The ruling facilitated the rise of 'migratory divorces' by validating decrees from states with short residency requirements, like Nevada. However, the Court's assumption of a bona fide domicile left a critical issue unresolved: whether the second state could independently investigate and reject the rendering court's finding of domicile, a question that would be addressed two years later in Williams v. North Carolina (Williams II).
