## Facts

- Florence Cook married Arthur Cook in Virginia on February 5, 1943, though she was still legally married to Albert Mann.
- Florence and Arthur agreed she would travel to Florida to obtain a divorce from Mann; Arthur helped pay part of the travel and divorce-related expenses.
- Florence obtained a Florida divorce decree from Mann and then remarried Arthur on December 18, 1943.
- After later marital difficulties, Florence obtained a separation and maintenance decree against Arthur in Hawaii.
- Arthur sued in Vermont seeking annulment of both marriages, alleging the Florida divorce was void because Florence was not domiciled in Florida and obtained the decree by false testimony.
- The Vermont trial court found that Florida required an intent to live and remain in Florida, that Florence lacked such intent, and that she deceived the Florida court about domicile.
- The Vermont trial court annulled the first marriage but dismissed the challenge to the second marriage; the Vermont Supreme Court held the second marriage also void.
- The Florida divorce record was not introduced in the Vermont proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits Vermont to collaterally attack a Florida divorce decree by relitigating domicile based on findings of lack of intent and alleged false testimony, absent record or extrinsic proof negating Florida’s jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Vermont Supreme Court.
- The Florida divorce decree was entitled to a presumption that the Florida court (a court of general jurisdiction) had jurisdiction over the cause and the parties.
- Vermont could not sustain a collateral attack on the Florida decree because neither the record nor competent extrinsic evidence overcame the presumption of jurisdiction.
- On this record, Vermont could not conclude that Florida lacked jurisdiction to grant the divorce.

## Legal Principles

- A divorce decree from a sister state’s court of general jurisdiction is presumed valid, including jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, unless evidence shows otherwise.
- Jurisdictional determinations bound up with the rendering court’s decree (including domicile) are treated as res judicata on collateral attack unless the presumption of jurisdiction is overcome by the record or competent extrinsic evidence.
- Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a forum state may not invalidate a sister-state divorce decree merely by retrying domicile when the forum lacks proof that the rendering court lacked jurisdiction.
- A third party’s ability to collaterally attack a divorce decree is at least as limited as the original spouse’s, absent proof that the rendering state would permit broader collateral attack.

## Conclusion

Because Vermont lacked the Florida record and lacked extrinsic proof showing Florida had no jurisdiction, the Florida divorce decree had to be given full faith and credit, and Vermont could not void the later marriage by collaterally relitigating Florence Cook’s Florida domicile.


Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126 (1951)