## Facts

- Robert M. Lea obtained an Arkansas divorce decree based on his claimed Arkansas domicile; Naomi Ruth Lea did not appear and was served by substituted means.
- Naomi later sued for divorce in New York on the ground of adultery.
- The New York court granted Naomi an absolute divorce, rejected the Arkansas decree for lack of jurisdiction based on an unfounded domicile claim, and awarded alimony (and support).
- Naomi, then residing in New Jersey, sued in New Jersey to enforce the New York judgment and collect alimony arrears.
- Robert opposed enforcement, asserting (1) the Arkansas decree conclusively ended the marriage and (2) New York lacked personal jurisdiction to impose alimony obligations.
- The New Jersey trial court enforced the New York judgment; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Robert could defeat enforcement of the New York divorce judgment in New Jersey by relying on the Arkansas divorce decree and full faith and credit.
2. Whether New Jersey must enforce the New York judgment’s alimony (and support) provisions, including arrears, given Robert’s jurisdictional objections.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed.
- The Arkansas divorce decree was not entitled to full faith and credit because Robert failed to establish a bona fide Arkansas domicile supporting Arkansas jurisdiction.
- New Jersey treated the New York judgment as controlling on marital status, including its rejection of the Arkansas decree.
- The New York judgment’s alimony provisions were enforceable in New Jersey as a foreign money judgment, and arrears could be collected.

## Legal Principles

- A sister-state divorce decree may be collaterally attacked for lack of jurisdiction or fraud, subject to full faith and credit limits.
- Inquiry into the rendering state’s jurisdiction is generally foreclosed where the defendant appeared and litigated, appeared and admitted domicile, or was personally served in the rendering state with a record showing jurisdiction over subject matter and person.
- The party relying on a foreign divorce based on domicile bears the burden to prove a genuine domicile; transient or contrived presence is insufficient.
- When a foreign divorce judgment is valid and jurisdictionally sound, its fixed monetary obligations for alimony and support are enforceable in another state like other foreign money judgments.

## Conclusion

New Jersey declined to recognize an Arkansas divorce resting on an unproven domicile and enforced a New York divorce judgment, including alimony arrears, as the operative determination of the parties’ marital status and financial obligations.


Lea v. Lea, 112 A.2d 540 (N.J. 1955)