Haddock v. Haddock

Background

The wife, who lived in New York, sued her husband there in 1899 for separation and alimony after he left soon after their 1868 marriage. The husband said he had obtained a Connecticut divorce in 1881 by publication and that the marriage was procured by the wife's fraud. At trial the New York referee excluded the Connecticut judgment roll and found the husband had abandoned and failed to support the wife. New York courts upheld the separation and alimony judgment and the husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether New York violated the Constitution by refusing to enforce the Connecticut divorce. The Court reviewed prior decisions and explained that the Constitution requires full faith and credit only for decrees rendered by courts that had proper jurisdiction. A personal judgment rendered by constructive service against a nonresident, without jurisdiction over that person, cannot be enforced in another State under the full faith and credit clause. Because the wife remained domiciled in New York and did not submit to Connecticut's jurisdiction, Connecticut's decree was not entitled to obligatory enforcement in New York.

Real world impact

The ruling means states can refuse to recognize out-of-state divorces that were obtained without jurisdiction over the absent spouse. People who try to end marriages by moving and using publication notice now face limits on whether other states will accept that divorce. The decision leaves to each State the authority to protect its citizens' marital and property rights.

Dissents or concurrances

Four Justices dissented, arguing the Connecticut record should have been received and enforced; they warned nonrecognition could produce unfair results like conflicting marital status, bigamy risk, and hardship for innocent parties and children.