## Facts

- Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston, Rhode Island residents, obtained a marriage license and participated in a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts on May 26, 2004.
- The parties returned to Rhode Island and lived together there.
- After the relationship ended, Chambers filed a divorce petition in the Rhode Island Family Court on October 23, 2006.
- Ormiston answered and filed a counterclaim on October 27, 2006.
- The validity of the Massachusetts marriage where celebrated was not disputed; the dispute was whether Rhode Island’s Family Court could entertain and grant a divorce dissolving it.
- The Family Court, a statutorily created court of limited jurisdiction, certified a question of law to the Rhode Island Supreme Court under G.L. 1956 § 9-24-27.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court ultimately addressed whether the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the divorce petition.

## Issues

1. Whether Rhode Island’s Family Court may recognize, for purposes of entertaining a divorce petition, a same-sex marriage validly entered in another state.
2. Whether the statutory grant of jurisdiction over “all petitions for divorce from the bond of marriage” includes jurisdiction to dissolve a same-sex marriage.
3. Whether full faith and credit, comity, or related federal provisions can supply or expand Family Court jurisdiction absent statutory authorization.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative.
- The Court held the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve a same-sex marriage, even if valid where celebrated.
- The Court reasoned that the Family Court’s authority is confined to powers expressly granted by the legislature and cannot be enlarged by comity or full faith and credit principles.
- The Court indicated that any change permitting such divorces in Family Court would require legislative action.
- A dissent would have allowed the Family Court to dissolve the out-of-state marriage, treating the divorce as a remedial proceeding without deciding broader recognition questions.

## Legal Principles

- A legislatively created court of limited jurisdiction may exercise only those powers the legislature has granted by statute.
- Statutory jurisdiction over “divorce from the bond of marriage” is construed in light of legislative intent at enactment; in 1961, “marriage” was understood as a union of one man and one woman.
- Full faith and credit and comity doctrines do not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction on a state court whose authority is statutorily limited.
- Courts will not expand statutory terms to cover relationships not contemplated by the enacting legislature when the question is the court’s subject matter jurisdiction; the remedy lies with the legislature.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the Family Court’s statutory jurisdiction over divorces did not extend to dissolving a same-sex marriage validly celebrated in another state, because the legislature’s 1961 jurisdictional grant used “marriage” in its then-prevailing opposite-sex sense and neither comity nor full faith and credit could enlarge the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.


Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956 (R.I. 2007)