Diana Trochez

Case Name and Citation:

Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948)
Facts:
Transactional Facts: Margaret and Edward were married on NJ in 1930. After living together for about
14 yearsthe last two in MAMargaret left with the 2 children to Florida for a vacation in April
1944. Shortly after arriving, she informed Edward that she did not intent to return to him. She obtained
housing, placed her older child in school and found a job. On July, Edward was served with a bill of
complaint of divorce and he retained counsel in FL. His counsel entered a general appearance and filed an
answer to Petitioners allegations of residence. Soon after in November, hearings were held and Edward
appeared personally to testify before the court and was represented by counsel. The court entered a
divorce decree and found that Margaret was a bona fide resident of FL. Edward did not challenge the
decree by appealing to the FL Supreme Court. Margaret, on December of the same year, married Henry in
FL and after living there for 2 months together, they moved back to MA.
Procedural Facts: Margaret filed for Divorce in the Circuit Court of the Judicial Circuit of the State of
Florida in July 1944. She alleged in the bill extreme cruelty as grounds for divorce and that she was a
bona fide resident of Florida. The court granted the divorce. In June 1945, Edward instituted an action
in the Probate Court of the Berkshire County, MA challenging the FL divorce decree. The Probate Court
found that Margaret was never domiciled in FL. The Supreme Court of MA affirmed the decree, however,
relying on the full faith and credit clause.
Issues:
1. Did the Probate Court err in finding that the divorce decree entered in FL was invalid because of
lack of jurisdiction?
Holding and Judgment:
The Probate Court erredthe MA courts erred in permitting the FL divorce decree to be subjected to
attack on the ground that petitioner was not domiciled in FL at the time the decree was entered. He was
allowed full participation in the proceedings.
Analysis:
1. Divorce decrees entered into in other states should not be allowed to be attacked for lack of
jurisdiction as long as the respondent in allowed full participation in the proceedings. Edward
entered a general appearance, filed pleadings, retained attorneys who represented him during the
proceedings and had the opportunity to contest petitioners domicile or any other issue. However,
he failed to take advantage of those opportunities.
2. States have a duty under Article IV to accord full faith and credit to decrees of divorce entered by
courts of sister States. If a divorce decree is rendered by a competent court, the obligation of full
faith and credit requires that such litigation should end in the courts of the State in which
judgment was rendered.
Other Opinions:
DissentFrankfurtDomicile requires a sense of permanence between the individual seeking the
individual and the State. States should not have to permit other States with quickie divorce laws to bind
all other states that would deny them of that benefit.
Claim Preclusionfully and fairly litigated
Edwards two choices:
1. Show up and challenge jurisdiction and then litigate on the merits.

Diana Trochez
2. Dont show up and then get a default judgment and then contest that. [if court in FL had
jurisdiction, then the judgment entered was validnothing to contest]