334 U.S. 541 (1948)
The parties were married in 1937 and lived together in New York until 1942 when the husband left the wife.1
There was no issue of the marriage.2 In 1943 she brought an action against him for a separation.3 He entered a general appearance.4 The court, finding that he had abandoned her, granted her a decree of separation and awarded her $180 per month as permanent alimony.5
In January 1944 he went to Nevada where in 1945 he instituted an action for divorce.6 She was notified of the action by constructive service but entered no appearance in it.7 In May, 1945, the Nevada court, finding that petitioner had been a bona fide resident of Nevada since January 30, 1944, granted him an absolute divorce on the ground of three years continual separation, without cohabitation.8 The Nevada decree made no provision for alimony, though the Nevada court had been advised of the New York decree.9
Prior to that time petitioner had made payments of alimony under the New York decree.10 After entry of the Nevada decree he ceased paying.11 Thereupon respondent sued in New York for a supplementary judgment for the amount of the arrears.12 Petitioner appeared in the action and moved to eliminate the alimony provisions of the separation decree by reason of the Nevada decree.13 The Supreme Court denied the motion and granted respondent judgment for the arrears.14 The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division and then by the Court of Appeals.15
This case is here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York.16
Whether a New York decree awarding respondent $180 per month for her maintenance and support in a separation proceeding survived a Nevada divorce decree which subsequently was granted petitioner?17
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a divorce decree granted by the state of a spouse's bona fide domicile is entitled to recognition in other states as to the change in marital status even if the other spouse was served only constructively.18 A prior alimony judgment rendered by a court with personal jurisdiction over both parties creates a property interest that cannot be extinguished by the divorce court lacking personal jurisdiction over the obligee.19
Yes. The New York separation decree awarding $180 monthly alimony was entered after the husband entered a general appearance, thereby establishing a property interest in the wife under New York law.20 Although the Nevada court validly altered the marital status of the parties based on the husband's domicile, it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the wife's rights in the New York alimony judgment.21 This was because she was not personally served and did not appear.22
Consequently, New York was not required to give full faith and credit to the Nevada decree insofar as it purported to affect the alimony obligation, allowing the support order to survive.23
The New York alimony decree survived the subsequent Nevada divorce decree.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Jackson dissented, contending that the decision adds to the confusion surrounding marital status in a mobile society.25 He argued that if the Nevada divorce is to be given full faith and credit as to the termination of the marriage, it should have the same effect as a New York divorce would, which under New York law would terminate the alimony obligation.26 He would not extend full faith and credit to constructive service divorces but, assuming the divorce is valid, believed it must be fully effective rather than divisible.27
Justice Frankfurter dissented separately. He agreed that New York could decide its maintenance decrees survive divorce but expressed doubt whether New York had discriminated against the Nevada decree by giving it less effect than a similar New York decree.28 He noted that Nevada did not purport to rule on the survival of the New York decree.
He would have remanded the case to the New York Court of Appeals for clarification on whether its holding applied equally to domestic and sister-state ex parte divorces.29