BLAKESLEE VS. BLAKESLEE (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Defendant wife appealed from a decree granting plaintiff husband a divorce founded on extreme cruelty and desertion, all underlying acts having occurred in Illinois where the parties formerly lived together; the husband left Chicago about May 1, 1914 and had resided in Reno about one year before suit. Appellant contended the decree could not rest on cruelty because the parties were never domiciled in Nevada and the acts stated no cause under Illinois law, and that desertion had not run the requisite period (two years in Illinois, one in Nevada). Held: adopting the prevailing American doctrine that a divorce proceeding is essentially in rem, the status being the res, a court of the state where the complaining spouse is bona fide domiciled has jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage although the defending spouse never resided there (Cheever v. Wilson, 76 U.S. 108; Cheely v. Clayton, 110 U.S. 702; Dunham v. Dunham, 162 Ill. 589; 9 R.C.L. 397). Rev. Laws 5838, authorizing suit in the county where the plaintiff has resided six months and enumerating wilful desertion for one year (third) and extreme cruelty (sixth) among the causes, contains no limitation confining the court to causes arising within the state; the legislative intent was to permit determination of the marriage status of residentially qualified parties regardless of where the cause arose. Marriage is an exception to lex loci contractus; the law of the forum controls, so the difference between Nevada's and Illinois's cruelty standards does not defeat the decree (Shreck v. Shreck; Tolen v. Tolen; Hubbell v. Hubbell). Residence was a fact question (Fleming v. Fleming, 36 Nev. 135; Merritt v. Merritt; Presson v. Presson, 38 Nev. 203), and the record supported the finding of bona fide residence. Affirmed.

In plain language

A husband and wife had lived together in Chicago. Around May 1, 1914, the husband came west, eventually settling in Reno, and after about a year's residence he sued for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and desertion. The trial court granted him the divorce. The wife appealed, arguing that the couple was never domiciled in Nevada, that everything complained of happened in Illinois, that the conduct would not be grounds for divorce under Illinois law, and that the desertion had not lasted long enough under either state's law. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. In American courts a divorce case is essentially a proceeding about status - an action in rem, with the marriage status as the thing decided - so a court where one spouse is genuinely domiciled can dissolve the marriage even if the other spouse never set foot in the state. Nevada's statute (Rev. Laws 5838) allows a resident plaintiff to sue in the county where the plaintiff has resided six months, and it contains no requirement that the cause of action arise in Nevada. The law of the forum controls: it did not matter that extreme cruelty as Nevada defines it is not the same under the laws of Illinois where the acts occurred. Whether the husband's Nevada residence was genuine was a question of fact for the trial court, and the record supported its finding of bona fide residence.