Massachusetts,Marriage,Divorce law Massachusetts Marriage Divorce Contempt Adultery Lawyers Att
When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a
Katherine C. Coe v. Martin Van Buren CoeSupreme Judicial Court of MassachusettsThe courtreversed the decrees denying the wife's petitions for contempt and to modifythe support decree and allowing the husband's petition to revoke the originalsupport decree. The court ordered the cases to stand for hearing.ISSUES:The issue hereis whether Plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence to impeach a foreigndivorce decree for lack of jurisdiction..DISCUSSION:The full faithand credit clause of the Federal Constitution did not preclude a court of thisCommonwealth from hearing evidence to impeach, for lack of jurisdiction, adecree of divorce by a court of another State. The judge erred in denying thepetitioner the right to introduce evidence to impeach the Nevada judgment. It is well settled that a bona fideresidence on the part of at least one of the parties is essential to thevalidity of a decree of divorce. It is competent for the courts of other Statesto inquire into the validity of a divorce so far, at least, as its validitydepends upon the jurisdiction of the State where the divorce was granted, andthat a domicile by one of the parties in the State in which the divorce was grantedis essential to jurisdiction. Where a divorce in a foreign jurisdiction has been obtainedin violation of this statute, one who participates in it is not precluded fromquestioning it in the courts of the Commonwealth. It is important to know whether the Nevada court hadjurisdiction and whether the statute (G.L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 208, § 39) had beenviolated. The answers to these questions cannot be ascertained from the recordbecause the petitioner was denied the right to introduce evidence with respectto them.It follows thatthe decrees appealed from are reversed and the cases are to stand for hearingin conformity with this opinion.JUDGMENT:The courtreversed the decrees denying the wife's petitions for contempt and to modifythe support decree and allowing the husband's petition to revoke the originalsupport decree. The court ordered the cases to stand for hearing.Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS LawGroup. They represent the firmsunofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritativecontent
Massachusetts,Marriage,Divorce