Williams et al. v. North Carolina
325 U.S. 226 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state is not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize a divorce decree from a sister state if, upon its own independent inquiry, a court finds that the party who obtained the divorce was not a bona fide domiciliary of the divorcing state. A sister state has the right to determine for itself the jurisdictional fact of domicile and is not bound by the rendering court's finding.
Facts:
- O.B. Williams and Lillie Shaver Hendrix were long-time residents of North Carolina, each married to other individuals.
- In May 1940, Williams and Hendrix traveled to Las Vegas, Nevada.
- They resided in a Nevada auto-court for transients for approximately six weeks, the minimum residency period required by Nevada law to file for divorce.
- In June 1940, both Williams and Hendrix were granted absolute divorces from their respective North Carolina spouses by a Nevada court.
- Immediately after the Nevada court granted their divorces, Williams and Hendrix married each other in Nevada.
- Shortly after their marriage, they returned to North Carolina, where they lived together as husband and wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of North Carolina prosecuted Williams and Hendrix for bigamous cohabitation in a North Carolina state trial court.
- A jury convicted the petitioners.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state's highest court, affirmed the convictions.
- On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions in Williams v. North Carolina I, holding that if Nevada's finding of domicile was not challenged, North Carolina must give the decrees full faith and credit.
- The case was remanded and retried in the North Carolina trial court, where the State challenged the bona fides of the petitioners' Nevada domicile.
- A jury again convicted Williams and Hendrix, specifically finding they never acquired a bona fide domicile in Nevada.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed these new convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the second judgment 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 a state to recognize a divorce decree granted by another state's court when the first state, upon retrial, finds that the petitioners did not acquire a bona fide domicile in the divorcing state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
No. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to recognize a sister state's divorce decree when it finds that the sister state's court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a bona fide domicile. Under our system of law, judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicile. While a Nevada court's finding of domicile is entitled to respect, it does not foreclose reexamination by another state. North Carolina has the right to assert its own social policies and determine for itself the truth of the crucial jurisdictional fact of domicile. The jury's finding that the petitioners went to Nevada solely to obtain divorces with the intent to return to North Carolina was supported by the evidence, meaning they never abandoned their North Carolina domiciles or acquired new ones in Nevada. Therefore, North Carolina was entitled to find the Nevada decrees invalid and prosecute the petitioners for bigamous cohabitation.
Concurring - Justice Murphy
No. Full faith and credit for a divorce decree is contingent on the rendering state having proper jurisdiction, which requires at least one party to have a bona fide domicile there. The jury found that the petitioners' alleged domicile in Nevada was not bona fide but was acquired fraudulently, a conclusion supported by overwhelming evidence. North Carolina has the exclusive right to regulate the marriages of its own domiciliaries, and no justifiable purpose is served by giving constitutional protection to sham domiciles established solely for divorce purposes. States have always been able to reexamine fraudulent domiciles, and this decision adds no new uncertainty to the law.
Dissenting - Justice Rutledge
Yes. The majority's decision abdicates the Court's duty to provide a stable foundation for marital relations and instead confides the final decision on the validity of a divorce to the caprice of local juries. This holding makes every divorce decree vulnerable to reexamination in every other state based on the amorphous concept of 'domicile,' which can always lead to conflicting inferences from the same evidence. The result is that petitioners are lawfully married in Nevada but bigamists in North Carolina, creating intolerable instability. The Constitution requires a more uniform and certain standard than allowing one state to nullify another's valid judgment based on a different policy preference.
Dissenting - Justice Black
Yes. The Court's decision undermines the finality of millions of uncontested divorce decrees and punishes petitioners for relying on a valid Nevada judgment. North Carolina should be required to give the Nevada decrees the same effect they have in Nevada, where they are unassailable. The majority improperly elevates the common-law concept of domicile to a constitutional requirement under the Due Process Clause, diminishing state power and creating a vague standard that makes it impossible for individuals to know if their conduct is criminal. The burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the petitioners to prove their innocence by proving the validity of their divorces, violating fundamental principles of justice.
Analysis:
This decision, often called Williams II, significantly curtails the holding of Williams I by establishing that the jurisdictional foundation of a divorce decree—domicile—is subject to collateral attack in a sister state. It affirms the power of a state to protect its own policies on marriage and divorce by re-litigating the facts underlying another state's jurisdiction. This creates the possibility of a 'divisible divorce,' where a person could be considered divorced in one state but still married in another, leading to legal uncertainty regarding marital status, remarriage, and inheritance across state lines. The ruling places individuals who obtain out-of-state divorces, particularly from jurisdictions with short residency requirements, at risk of criminal prosecution and civil challenges in their home state.
Unlock the full brief for Williams et al. v. North Carolina