378 U.S. 540, 84 S. Ct. 1687, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (1964)
In 1945, the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida granted a divorce to petitioner Marguerite Loretta Aldrich from M. S. Aldrich.1 M. S. Aldrich was ordered by the Court to pay petitioner $250 a month as permanent alimony, and the decree provided that said monthly sum of $250.00 shall, upon the death of said defendant become a charge upon his estate during her lifetime.2 The Florida court later reduced the alimony to $215 per month after denying the husband's petition for rehearing.3 No appeal was taken by either party.4
M. S. Aldrich died testate on May 29, 1958, a resident of Putnam County, West Virginia.5 His will was duly probated in Putnam County and the appraisal of the estate showed assets of $7,283.50.6 Petitioner filed a claim against the estate for alimony which had accrued after the death of her former husband.7 Petitioner commenced this action in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, in order to have her rights in the estate determined.8 She also demanded that certain allegedly fraudulent transfers of real and personal property made by M. S. Aldrich be set aside and the properties which were the subject of such transfers administered as a part of the estate, so as to be subject to her claim for alimony under the Florida divorce decree.9
On motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the Circuit Court of Putnam County held that the decree of the Florida divorce court was invalid and unenforceable insofar as it purported to impose upon the estate of M. S. Aldrich an obligation to pay alimony accruing after his death.10 The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the judgment, 147 W. Va. 269, 127 S. E. 2d 385.11 We granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 963, to decide whether West Virginia had complied with the mandate of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.12 Being uncertain regarding the relevant law of Florida and believing that law to be determinative of the effect to be given the Florida judgment, we certified questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court.13
The Florida court, in answer to our certification, has determined that although the award of alimony purporting to bind the estate was not proper under Florida law, the court rendering the decree did not thereby lose its jurisdiction over that part of the case.14 It further decided that when the husband failed to take an appeal and give a reviewing court the opportunity to correct the error, the decree of the Circuit Court on such question passed into verity, became final, and is not now subject to collateral attack.15
Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia complied with the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it refused to enforce the Florida divorce decree that imposed post-death alimony obligations on the husband's estate?16
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, a judgment of a court of another state has the same force and effect in this state as it has in the state in which it was pronounced, and no greater effect is to be given to it than it would have in the state where it was rendered.17 A Florida alimony decree that is final and not subject to collateral attack under Florida law must be given the same effect in West Virginia.18
No. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia did not comply with the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it refused to enforce the Florida divorce decree that imposed post-death alimony obligations on the husband's estate.19 The Florida decree awarded permanent alimony that became a charge upon the husband's estate after his death even though there was no prior express agreement between the parties.20 After the husband died in West Virginia, the estate was appraised at only $7,283.50 and the West Virginia courts refused to enforce the post-death portion of the decree on the ground that it was void under Florida law.21 The United States Supreme Court certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court, which confirmed that the decree was final, not subject to collateral attack, and had passed into verity because the husband had not appealed.22
Given those answers, the West Virginia judgment rested on a misapprehension of Florida law and cannot stand under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.23
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia cannot stand because it was based on a misapprehension regarding the law of a sister State, and the Florida alimony decree must be treated as binding under Florida law.24