Cook v. Cook

Background

A woman obtained a Florida divorce after she and a man had agreed she would go to Florida to secure it so she and another man could marry. She later remarried, and the second husband sued in Vermont asking both marriages be declared void. Vermont courts found the Florida divorce was obtained by deception about domicile and annulled the marriages.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether Vermont could relitigate the Florida court’s power to grant the divorce when the Vermont record did not show what happened in Florida. The Court said a sister-state decree is entitled to a presumption that the issuing court had jurisdiction. That presumption can be overcome only if the attacker proves, for example, that the other spouse was neither served nor appeared. Because the Vermont record did not show whether the Florida proceedings were contestable, the Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with that presumption.

Real world impact

The decision means people challenging an out-of-state divorce must put forward clear proof that the issuing state lacked jurisdiction, such as showing the other spouse was not served and did not appear. It leaves open further factfinding in Vermont and does not finally decide whether the Florida decree was fraudulent in fact.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Frankfurter dissented, arguing the Vermont record showed the Florida decree was a sham and that Vermont reasonably treated it as void without more formal findings about the absent husband’s participation.