Sherrer v. Sherrer
Headline: States must honor out-of-state divorces when the other spouse appeared, limiting home states’ ability to relitigate where parties lived and giving quicker divorces wider legal effect nationwide.
Holding: The Court held that when a spouse appears and fully participates in an out-of-state divorce, other States must give that divorce full effect and may not relitigate where the parties lived to invalidate the decree.
- Prevents home states from relitigating an out-of-state divorce when the spouse participated.
- Gives legal finality sooner for people who obtained divorces away from their home State.
- Raises concern that 'quickie' divorce destinations will bind other States.
Summary
Background
These cases involve two people who obtained divorces in other States and then returned to Massachusetts. In Sherrer, a wife went to Florida, stayed about ninety-three days, got a Florida divorce while the husband appeared in the Florida proceedings, then returned to Massachusetts. In Coe, a husband went to Nevada for about six weeks, obtained a Nevada divorce while his wife participated, and later returned to Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts reviewed those out-of-state decrees and found the parties still lived in Massachusetts, refusing to treat the foreign divorces as valid at home.
Reasoning
The Court focused on the constitutional duty to respect other States’ judgments and long-standing rules that prevent endless relitigation once a party had a real opportunity to contest jurisdictional facts. The majority said that when a spouse appears and fully participates in an out-of-state divorce, the home State cannot later collaterally relitigate the question of where the party actually lived to defeat the decree. The Court relied on earlier decisions holding that final findings about jurisdictional facts are binding when the parties had their day in court and could have appealed.
Real world impact
The decision requires Massachusetts and other States to give effect to out-of-state divorces in which the opposing spouse appeared and had a fair chance to contest residence. That makes some divorces obtained away from home more final and reduces the ability of home States to reopen those questions. The Court reversed the Massachusetts rulings and ordered recognition of the foreign decrees.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Frankfurter (joined by Justice Murphy) dissented, warning that the rule will encourage sham contests, undermine State control over family law, and promote dishonest claims about where people lived to secure quick divorces.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?