## Facts

- Ruth M. Worthley and Edward J. Worthley married in New Jersey in 1943 and separated in 1946.
- In 1947, a New Jersey court (with personal jurisdiction over Edward, who appeared) entered a separate maintenance decree requiring Edward to pay Ruth $9 per week.
- In 1948, Edward obtained a Nevada divorce after serving Ruth in New Jersey; Ruth did not appear in Nevada, and the Nevada decree awarded no alimony.
- Edward paid all amounts due under the New Jersey decree through the date of the Nevada divorce and then stopped making payments.
- In 1951, Ruth sued Edward in California (where he lived) to recover $1,089 in arrears and to have the New Jersey support order established and enforced in California, including prospective weekly payments.

## Issues

1. Whether a Nevada divorce decree entitled to full faith and credit as to marital status extinguishes obligations imposed by an earlier New Jersey separate maintenance decree entered with personal jurisdiction over both parties.
2. Whether California may enforce arrearages and order future payments under a New Jersey support decree that is modifiable in New Jersey, when both parties are before the California court and modification can be litigated.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment that barred Ruth’s action.
- The Nevada divorce decree was entitled to full faith and credit as to dissolution of the marriage but did not, by itself, terminate obligations imposed by the prior New Jersey support decree.
- California could proceed to enforce the New Jersey decree for claimed arrears and could also enforce future installments by establishing the decree as a California order, provided modification issues could be litigated with both parties present.
- The case was allowed to go forward subject to California giving the New Jersey decree the same effect it would have in New Jersey, including consideration of permissible modification.

## Legal Principles

- Full faith and credit to a sister-state divorce adjudicates marital status, but it does not necessarily resolve preexisting support obligations imposed by another state’s decree entered with personal jurisdiction over both parties.
- A forum state must give a sister-state support decree the same effect it has in the rendering state; if the decree is binding unless and until modified, it may be enforced accordingly.
- A forum state may enforce arrearages under a sister-state support decree even if the decree is modifiable, when both parties are before the court and the obligor may litigate modification grounds available under the rendering state’s law.
- A forum state may also enforce future installments (by entering an equivalent local order) on the same conditions: both parties are present and the court can adjudicate modification for past and prospective payments consistent with the rendering state’s standards.
- A later divorce decree that is silent on alimony does not automatically supersede or nullify a prior support decree absent an adjudication of support rights.

## Conclusion

California was required to recognize the Nevada divorce as terminating marital status, but it could still enforce the New Jersey separate maintenance decree for arrears and future payments, giving it the effect New Jersey would give and allowing contemporaneous litigation of any modification issues with both parties before the court.


Worthley v. Worthley, 44 Cal. 2d 465, 283 P.2d 19 (Cal. 1955)