342 U.S. 402, 72 S. Ct. 398, 96 L. Ed. 448 (1952)
In 1939 petitioner Verna Sutton obtained a divorce from respondent Leib in an Illinois state court.1 Under the decree she was awarded $125 on or before the first day of each calendar month for so long as she remained unmarried or the decree remained in full force and effect.2
On July 3, 1944, petitioner married Walter Henzel in Reno, Nevada, the same day Henzel obtained a Nevada divorce from Dorothy Henzel, a New York resident who had not been served in Nevada and who made no appearance there.3 One month later, on August 3, 1944, Dorothy Henzel brought a separate maintenance proceeding in the courts of New York against Walter Henzel.4
The New York proceeding resulted in a decree declaring Walter Henzel’s Nevada divorce from Dorothy null and void.5 With service of that process, petitioner ceased living with Henzel and in January 1945 filed suit in New York for annulment of her marriage to him, in which Walter Henzel appeared.6 On June 6, 1947, the New York court entered an interlocutory decree after trial that became final three months later, declaring petitioner’s marriage to Henzel null and void because he had another wife living at the time of the marriage.7
No appeal was taken in Nevada from the Henzels’ divorce decree, and no further action was taken in Nevada concerning the marriage of Henzel and petitioner.8 No appeal was taken in New York from the judgment holding the Henzels’ Nevada divorce null and void or from the judgment annulling the Nevada marriage of Henzel and petitioner.9 The jurisdiction of the New York courts to enter the judgments is unquestioned.10
Petitioner asserted diversity jurisdiction.11 She filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois seeking recovery of unpaid alimony installments from the date of the Nevada marriage until her third marriage in New York.12 The district court rendered summary judgment for respondent, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.14
Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires Illinois to treat the New York annulment decree as rendering the Nevada marriage void from its inception?15
The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to give judicial proceedings of sister states the same effect they have in the rendering state when the rendering court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. Such judgments are res judicata and unassailable collaterally.16
Yes. Petitioner and Henzel both appeared in the New York annulment proceeding after the New York court had already declared Henzel's Nevada divorce void for lack of jurisdiction over his first wife.17 The New York court then entered a final decree declaring the Nevada marriage to petitioner null and void because Henzel had another wife living.18 This decree is entitled to full faith and credit in Illinois and compels recognition that the Nevada marriage was void from its inception, consistent with Nevada law on bigamous marriages.19
The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires Illinois to treat the New York annulment decree as rendering the Nevada marriage void from its inception.20
Whether the effect of the New York annulment on the alimony obligation under the Illinois divorce decree is governed by Illinois law?21
Yes. The New York annulment conclusively determines the marital status of petitioner and Henzel throughout the nation, but respondent Leib was not a party to the New York proceedings.24 Illinois therefore remains free to decide for itself what effect the New York declaration of nullity has on the alimony obligation created by the Illinois divorce decree that awarded support until remarriage.25
The effect of the New York annulment on the alimony obligation under the Illinois divorce decree is governed by Illinois law.26
Whether a federal court in a diversity case should decide unresolved questions of Illinois law concerning the alimony obligation after the annulment or seek a definitive ruling from Illinois state courts?27
Yes. A federal court in a diversity case may decide unresolved questions of Illinois law concerning the alimony obligation after the annulment rather than seeking a definitive ruling from Illinois state courts.30 The remaining questions of Illinois law are for decision by the federal courts. However, the Court of Appeals has not yet had occasion to consider the effect of an annulment under Illinois law on the alimony obligation when the second marriage is judicially declared invalid.
The Supreme Court therefore remands for further proceedings to determine that rule.31
A federal court in a diversity case may decide unresolved questions of Illinois law concerning the alimony obligation after the annulment rather than seeking a definitive ruling from Illinois state courts.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Frankfurter agreed with the Court's disposition but wrote separately to emphasize that the turning point of the case is purely a matter of Illinois law having no relation to essential federal functions.32 He observed that any ruling by the Court of Appeals would be tentative and could be authoritatively supplanted by the Illinois Supreme Court.33 He therefore urged that the case be held in the Court of Appeals.34
The plaintiff should obtain a declaratory judgment from the Illinois courts on the crucial question whether the alimony obligation ceases upon a marriage ceremony regardless of its binding validity.35