Worthley v. Worthley
44 Cal.2d 465 (1955)
Rule of Law:
California courts can enforce sister-state alimony and support decrees that are modifiable both retroactively and prospectively. In such an enforcement action, California courts have the power to modify the decree based on the same grounds that would be available in the state that originally issued the decree.
Facts:
- In March 1943, Plaintiff and Defendant were married in New Jersey.
- The couple separated in November 1946.
- On May 19, 1947, a New Jersey court entered a separate maintenance decree ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff $9.00 per week for her support.
- Approximately ten months later, Defendant left New Jersey and moved to Nevada.
- In March 1948, Defendant initiated divorce proceedings in Nevada; Plaintiff was served in New Jersey but did not appear.
- On July 7, 1948, a Nevada court granted Defendant an ex parte divorce, with the decree making no provision for alimony.
- Defendant paid all support due under the New Jersey decree up to the date of the Nevada divorce but made no payments thereafter.
- Defendant subsequently became a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to recover arrears and enforce a New Jersey separate maintenance decree.
- Defendant filed an answer asserting as an affirmative defense that a subsequent Nevada divorce decree terminated his obligations.
- The trial court first heard Defendant's special defense and concluded that the Nevada decree was a bar to the action.
- The trial court entered a judgment barring further prosecution of the Plaintiff's action.
- Plaintiff appealed from the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 sister-state's support decree, which is modifiable both retroactively and prospectively, create an enforceable obligation in California courts that can be modified by them?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Traynor
Yes, a sister-state's modifiable support decree creates an obligation that is enforceable and modifiable in California courts. The Nevada divorce decree, obtained without personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, only terminated the marital status and did not affect the preexisting New Jersey support obligation. Under New Jersey law, an ex parte foreign divorce does not supersede a prior maintenance decree. While the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel enforcement of a modifiable decree, California courts, as a matter of comity and public policy, should enforce such obligations. To avoid forcing parties into costly and inconvenient multi-state litigation, California courts will entertain pleas for modification from either party, applying the substantive law of the rendering state to determine if a modification is warranted.
Dissenting - Justice Spence
No, a sister-state's support decree that is modifiable should not be enforced or modified by California courts until it is reduced to a final, non-modifiable judgment in the rendering state. The majority's decision overturns established California precedent and creates confusion by allowing courts in multiple states to modify the same decree. A judgment that is modifiable retroactively is based on 'shifting sands' and provides no firm foundation for another jurisdiction's judgment. The proper procedure is for the plaintiff to obtain a final money judgment for arrears in New Jersey and then seek enforcement of that final judgment in California.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered the landscape of interstate enforcement of family support obligations by establishing that California courts will treat modifiable sister-state decrees as if they were their own. It rejected the traditional view that only final, unalterable judgments were enforceable, adopting a more pragmatic approach centered on judicial economy and fairness to litigants who have moved between states. This ruling empowered California courts to act as a forum for both enforcement and modification, thereby preventing an obligor from evading support by moving to California and forcing an obligee to engage in burdensome multi-state litigation. The case sets a precedent for applying the principle of comity to modifiable family law judgments, a departure from strict full faith and credit requirements.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Worthley v. Worthley (1955)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"