ALDABE VS. ALDABE (DIVORCE)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Zenoff, J. On consolidated appeals, the court affirmed summary judgment declaring a Nevada divorce decree valid and affirmed dismissal of the former wife's damages complaint. (1) Jurisdiction/residence: residence is synonymous with domicile and comprises the fact of presence together with the intention to remain; the location of the parties' dwelling (on the California side of a border-straddling ranch near Reno) is merely one incidental factor. The record - mailing address, voter registration, schooling, medical care, business and financial affairs, licenses, taxes, wills, and employment, all in Nevada - established Nevada domicile, and Nevada had a legitimate interest in adjudicating the parties' marital status; the trial courts' jurisdictional findings were proper notwithstanding a contrary suggestion by the California District Court of Appeal in Aldabe v. Aldabe, 209 Cal.App.2d 453, 26 Cal.Rptr. 208 (1962). (2) Extrinsic fraud: no facts established extrinsic fraud as a matter of law. Alvera had not effectively discharged her Nevada counsel (she later verified pleadings in his office; no formal withdrawal/substitution under SCR 46); notice to counsel is notice to the client; counsel's appearance is presumed authorized. Having invoked the forum and had, through counsel, the opportunity to disclose facts and present her position, she was accorded procedural due process, was charged with knowledge of the facts she claimed were withheld, and voluntarily elected not to participate. Summary judgment was proper. (3) The damages/conspiracy complaint was properly dismissed because the pleaded facts did not show she was prevented from presenting her case, and the alleged community-property value was grossly overstated.

In plain language

Alvera Aldabe tried to undo a Nevada divorce her husband Charles had obtained, and separately sued him and others for damages. The trial court upheld the divorce (granting summary judgment that it was valid) and dismissed the damages case. Alvera appealed both, and the two cases were combined. Alvera had first filed for divorce in Nevada, claiming she lived in Nevada, then started the same case in California claiming she lived there. Her husband answered and counterclaimed in Nevada. Even though she said she had fired her Nevada lawyer, she later went to his office and personally verified her court papers in the Nevada case. The Nevada divorce went forward on the husband's counterclaim. The couple's ranch straddled the California-Nevada line near Reno, with the house on the California side, and a California appeals court had suggested the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction because the home was in California. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed. It explained that 'residence' for divorce means domicile - actually being present plus intending to stay - and that where the house sits is only one small factor. Everything about the Aldabes' lives (voting, taxes, schools, jobs, licenses, wills) pointed to Nevada, so the Nevada court had jurisdiction. The court also rejected Alvera's claim of 'extrinsic fraud' (being tricked out of her chance to defend). She had invoked the Nevada court, personally verified pleadings, and had lawyers; notice to her lawyers counted as notice to her, and she simply chose not to participate further. Because she was given a fair chance and showed no fraud, the divorce was valid and the damages suit was properly dismissed.