THE LAW OFFICE OF XYZ

4990 E Mediterranean Dr. Suite D Sierra Vista,

AZ 85635

PETITIONERS: WILLIAMS et al. represented by the legal counsel Mr. W. H.

Strickland, of Lenoir, N.C.
RESPONDENT: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA represented by Mr. Hughes J.
Rhodes of Burlington, N.C.
CASE STATUS: Dismissed
COURT RULING: The Supreme Court denied the petition of Williams, et al. and
rejected Nevada’s finding of domicile
CASE SUMMARY:
Facts:
The case involves Williams and Hendrix, residents of North
Carolina, the defendants in the first case herein the plaintiffs. Both
of them moved to Nevada and filed for divorce against each of their
spouses in the said court. They were granted the divorce on the
ground that each was domiciled in Nevada. They married each other
and moved back to North Carolina, where they were charged for
bigamy. They were convicted on the ground that they were not
domiciled in Nevada when the divorce decrees were granted and
therefore it had no jurisdiction over them.

Issue:
May North Carolina refuse to recognize a divorce granted in
Nevada if the former determines that the basis of jurisdiction of the
latter is unfounded?

Held:
Yes. A divorce decree is a conclusive resolution except the
jurisdictional facts upon which it is founded.
In this case, North Carolina may refuse to recognize the
Nevada decrees of divorce if it determines that Nevada erred in its
finding of domicile. However, under the Doctrine of Full Faith and
Credit Clause enunciated in the Constitution stresses that the
determination of jurisdiction by one State be given great weight in a
sister State. A decree of divorce rendered in one State may be
collaterally impeached in another by proof that the court which
rendered the decree had no jurisdiction, even though the record of
the proceedings in that court purports to show jurisdiction. A
jurisdictional finding such as in this case may be rejected only if the
party urging its rejection can overcome the burden of proof and can
sufficiently provide evidence of lack of jurisdiction.
North Carolina trial court appropriately charged the jury that
ruling of Nevada court on domicile is a prima facie evidence of such,
but is not conclusive. Under the premise, North Carolina had the
right to reject Nevada’s finding of domicile.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed.