Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether Connecticut courts gave full faith and credit to a Nevada divorce decree where the decedent’s Nevada domicile was disputed. The Court affirmed, holding that the Connecticut courts properly allocated the burden of proof, fairly tried the domicile issue, and found sufficient evidence that the decedent had not acquired a bona fide Nevada domicile. The Court also held that the respondent, who was not personally served and did not participate in the Nevada proceedings, was not precluded from challenging the Nevada court’s domicile finding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Connecticut gave the Nevada divorce decree the full faith and credit required by Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution.
- Whether Lillian Rice, who was not personally served in Nevada and did not participate in the Nevada divorce proceeding, could challenge in Connecticut the Nevada court's finding that Herbert Rice was domiciled in Nevada.
- Whether the Connecticut courts properly allocated the burden of proving lack of Nevada domicile and fairly tried and supported that factual issue.
Holdings
- The Connecticut courts gave proper weight to the Nevada court's asserted jurisdiction and did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause by determining that Herbert Rice had not acquired a bona fide domicile in Nevada.
- Because no personal service was made on Lillian Rice and she did not participate in the Nevada proceedings, she was not precluded from challenging in the Connecticut action the Nevada court's finding that Herbert was domiciled there.
Key quotations
“Upon full consideration of the record, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Errors, and the argument of counsel, we have concluded that the Connecticut courts gave proper weight to the claims of power by the Nevada court, that the burden of proving that the decedent had not acquired a domicile in Nevada was placed upon respondent, that this issue of fact was fairly tried according to appropriate procedure, and that the findings of the Connecticut courts are amply supported in evidence.” (336 U.S. at 675)
“She was not, therefore, precluded in the present action from challenging the finding of the Nevada court that Herbert N. Rice was, at the time of the divorce, domiciled in that state.” (336 U.S. at 676)
Factual background
Herbert N. Rice obtained a Nevada divorce from Lillian Rice without personal service on Lillian in Nevada and without her participation in the Nevada proceedings. After the divorce, Herbert married Hermoine Rice, and he later died intestate. Lillian brought a Connecticut action to establish her widowhood status for purposes of Connecticut property and inheritance rights, and the Connecticut courts found that Herbert had not acquired a bona fide Nevada domicile.
Procedural history
Lillian Rice brought a declaratory-judgment action in Connecticut concerning the parties' widowhood status and inheritance rights in the estate of Herbert N. Rice. After a full trial, the Connecticut Superior Court found that Herbert had never established a bona fide domicile in Nevada and entered judgment for Lillian. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.