Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 19 N.Y.2d 710 (1967)
r
r
A party who is a stranger to an out-of-state divorce decree can only collaterally attack it in New York courts if the rendering state (here, Alabama) would permit such an attack.
r
r
Summary
r
The plaintiff sued her second husband for separation; the second husband counterclaimed for an annulment, arguing the plaintiff’s Alabama divorce from her first husband was invalid, making her marriage to the defendant bigamous. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the defendant was a stranger to the Alabama divorce decree, he could only attack it in New York if Alabama law allowed such an attack by a stranger. Since it was unclear whether Alabama law permitted such an attack, the New York court had to give full faith and credit to the Alabama decree, dismissing the counterclaim, but permitting the husband to reassert his claim if he successfully vacates the divorce in Alabama courts.
r
r
Facts
r
r
The plaintiff married her first husband.r
r
r
In 1955, the plaintiff obtained a divorce decree in Alabama from her first husband; both parties appeared in the Alabama divorce proceedings.r
r
r
In 1957, the plaintiff married the defendant (her second husband) in New York.r
r
r
The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant for separation.r
r
r
The defendant counterclaimed for an annulment, arguing that the Alabama divorce was jurisdictionally void, meaning the plaintiff was still married to her first husband when she married him.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
The wife sued for separation; the husband counterclaimed for annulment.r
r
r
The lower court’s decision regarding the counterclaim is not specified in the provided text.r
r
r
The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a New York court should give full faith and credit to an Alabama divorce decree when a party who was a stranger to the Alabama proceeding (the second husband) collaterally attacks the decree in New York, alleging it is jurisdictionally void.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because when both parties appeared in the out-of-state divorce proceedings, a stranger to the decree may collaterally attack it in New York courts only if he establishes that the rendering state (Alabama) permits such an attack; the defendant failed to meet that burden.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle of full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), which generally requires states to respect the judgments of other states’ courts. However, this principle is not absolute.r
r
r
The court cited precedent (Weisner v. Weisner, Johnson v. Muelberger, Cook v. Cook) establishing that a third party (a