military wife
November 30th, 2009 | 
Author:
military wife
 |
 The Crazies DVD Timothy Olyphant Radha Mitchell  US $4.99
|
 Murder At The Presidio DVD US $1.57
|
 Murder at the Presidio DVD US $.99
|
 Blue Sky VHS 1995 US $.99
|
 WWI PFC Signal Corps Chevron US $7.95
|
 WWI PFC Artillery Chevron US $7.95
|
 WWI PFC Infantry Chevron US $7.95
|
 WWI PFC Medical Department Chevron US $7.95
|
 WWI Assistant Band Leader Chevron US $14.95
|
 WWI Cook Chevron US $7.95
|
 Service Stripes or Overseas Chevrons US $4.95
|
 Manual for Interior Guard Duty 1914 US $3.95
|
 VINTAGE MIGHTY CASEY RIDING TRAIN w TRACK RARE FOR RESTORATION OR APPRECIATION US $150.00
|
 Tom Cruise Top Gun US $4.99
|
 Apple iPhone 4 32GB Black FIDO network MINT US $366.00
|
 Carousel Focke Wulf Fw 190D US $33.33
|
 Fargo US $3.99
|
 The Life Aquatic Steve Zissou US $4.99
|
 ETCHING TOLKIEN US $.99
|
 Casio GzOne Boulder Mint No Contract Ruggedize VERIZON US $64.95
|
 Executive Decision Unlawful Entry DVD 2007 US $7.25
|
 Natural Born Killers US $2.99
|
 Ugetsu Monogatari Oyu sama Masters of Cinema OOP US $22.51
|
 GOLD WALKER TEXAS RANGERS COWBOY SHERIFF BADGE PIN US $9.99
|
 Into the Fire by Suzanne Brockmann 2008 Unabridged Compact DiscMP3 US $1.84
|
 KENNEDY CENTER HONORS 04 DVD CAROL BURNETT JULIE ANDREWS LORETTA LYNN US $19.99
|
 Work from Home US $.01
|
Massachusetts Grounds Divorce Decree Military Retirement Pay Lacked Jurisdiction Lawyers Attorneys
SUSAN J. SIMMONS vs. STEVEN R. SIMMONS.
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
January 20, 1995
During the pendency of a complaint for divorce brought by the wife in Massachusetts, the husband filed an action for divorce in South Carolina. Despite the wife's request for a continuance on the ground that a prior action for divorce was pending in Massachusetts, and a claim that the South Carolina court did not have jurisdiction, a judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of South Carolina on April 13, 1992, "ordered adjudged and decreed that the defendant is entitled to a divorce." The court issued no order regarding custody, alimony, support, or division of property. The South Carolina court determined that it had jurisdiction, that the wife's divorce had been pending since 1987, "that the sister state (Massachusetts) has failed to give any reason for its failure to issue a ruling in this matter" although a hearing had been held in December, 1991, and that the husband "is entitled to his divorce." Subsequent to that order, a Massachusetts Probate Court, on August 19, 1992, issued a judgment of divorce nisi which, if valid, would have become absolute ninety days thereafter. That judgment also provided for visitation by the husband and a division of marital assets, including the husband's military retirement pay. The husband filed a motion for relief from judgment in the lower court, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The lower court denied the motion, and the husband sought review of that decision.
Issue:
- Whether the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case?
The Court held that it is true that the South Carolina divorce judgment is entitled to full faith and credit and that the judgment has established with finality the status of the plaintiff's marriage. The wife appeared through counsel in South Carolina and is precluded from relitigating the same matter in Massachusetts. While the portion of the Massachusetts judgment which adjudged a divorce is a nullity, there is no reason to invalidate the remainder of the judgment. Further the Court finds that "General Laws, c. 208, § 34, as amended through St. 1990, c. 467, specifically provides: "Upon divorce or upon a complaint in an action brought at any time after a divorce, whether such a divorce has been adjudged in this commonwealth or another jurisdiction, the court of the commonwealth, provided there is personal jurisdiction over both parties, may make a judgment for either of the parties to pay alimony to the other. In addition to or in lieu of a judgment to pay alimony, the court may assign to either husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other, including but not limited to . . . . military retirement benefits if qualified under and to the extent provided by federal law. . . ." The wife's complaint sought custody, alimony, and support as well as a divorce. The South Carolina judgment did not purport to settle any of these matters. Since the Massachusetts Probate Court had personal jurisdiction over both parties, the South Carolina judgment did not prevent the Massachusetts Probate Court from adjudicating the other questions encompassed in the wife's complaint.
Conclusion:
This Court concludes that the portion of the August 19, 1992, judgment nisi which purported to adjudicate a divorce is deleted. With that exception, the denial of the motion for relief from judgment is affirmed.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
About the Author
The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law. The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore. The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge. The New York office is in New York City. The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County. The California office is in Orange County, CA.
The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.
Posted in 
Tags: