## Facts

- Margaret E. Sherrer and Edward C. Sherrer married in New Jersey (1930) and lived in Massachusetts until April 1944.
- After marital discord, the wife went to Florida in April 1944, secured housing and employment, and enrolled a child in school.
- The wife filed for divorce in Florida alleging extreme cruelty and that she was a bona fide Florida resident.
- The husband received notice, retained Florida counsel, entered a general appearance, and filed an answer denying the material allegations, including Florida residence.
- At a Florida hearing, the husband appeared in person and through counsel; the wife presented evidence of Florida residence and grounds for divorce, and the husband did not cross-examine on residence or offer rebuttal evidence.
- The Florida court granted the divorce, expressly finding the wife a bona fide Florida resident and that the court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter; the husband did not appeal.
- The wife remarried shortly after and returned to Massachusetts.
- In Massachusetts, the husband collaterally attacked the Florida decree as jurisdictionally invalid for lack of Florida domicile; the Massachusetts court declared the Florida divorce void.

## Issues

1. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Act required Massachusetts to recognize the Florida divorce decree.
2. Whether a spouse who appeared and had a full opportunity to contest domicile in the rendering state may later collaterally attack the decree’s jurisdictional basis in a sister state.
3. Whether due process permits relitigation of jurisdictional facts in another state after participation and opportunity to litigate in the rendering state.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts judgment.
- Massachusetts was required to give full faith and credit to the Florida divorce decree.
- Because the husband appeared, contested jurisdiction in his pleadings, and had a full opportunity to litigate domicile in Florida, he was barred from collaterally attacking the decree on jurisdictional grounds in Massachusetts when Florida would not permit such collateral attack.
- Due process did not require a second forum to relitigate domicile after a full opportunity to be heard in the rendering state.

## Legal Principles

- A sister state must recognize a divorce decree when the defendant spouse participated in the rendering-state proceeding and had a full opportunity to contest the rendering court’s jurisdiction, including domicile.
- Jurisdictional fact determinations (such as domicile) are subject to issue preclusion when actually litigated or when the party had a fair opportunity to litigate them in the rendering state.
- Full faith and credit bars collateral attack on a judgment’s jurisdictional basis in another state when the judgment is not open to collateral attack under the rendering state’s law.
- State domestic-relations policy interests do not justify refusing recognition of a sister state’s decree when constitutional full faith and credit requirements apply.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Massachusetts could not invalidate the Florida divorce by relitigating domicile because the husband appeared and had a full opportunity to contest Florida jurisdiction, making the Florida decree binding between the parties and entitled to full faith and credit.


Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948)