CRAYNE VS. CRAYNE (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Appeal by the defendant wife from a decree granting the plaintiff husband a divorce (cruelty) in the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, and from the order denying her new trial motion. Ducker, J. The wife's fifth defense pleaded a California superior court interlocutory judgment of divorce (default, entered April 28, 1931 on her complaint alleging failure to provide and extreme cruelty) as res judicata; the identity of issues was conceded. Held: res judicata is available only after a final decree (Whitman Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Baker, 3 Nev. 386; McLeod v. Lee, 17 Nev. 103), and interlocutory orders or judgments will not operate as res judicata; the judgment was interlocutory on its face because it provided that a final judgment dissolving the marriage would be entered after one year. The reply's denials placed on the wife the burden to prove California law giving the interlocutory decree final effect, which the bare judgment roll did not carry. The residence challenge failed: testimony established actual continuous physical presence in Reno from November 1, 1930 through February 6, 1931 plus intent to remain, and the court takes judicial notice that Reno is in Washoe County (State v. Buralli, 27 Nev. 41) and that Washoe County constitutes the Second Judicial District. Judgment and order affirmed.

In plain language

A husband and wife each filed for divorce in different states. The wife sued first in Los Angeles, California in January 1931, and after the husband failed to respond she won a default 'interlocutory' judgment of divorce - a California-style ruling that only becomes a final divorce after a year passes. Meanwhile, in February 1931, the husband filed his own divorce case in Reno, Nevada, claiming cruelty, and the Nevada court granted him a divorce. The wife appealed, arguing that the Nevada court should have treated her California judgment as already deciding the issues (the doctrine of res judicata), and that the husband had not really proved he lived in Nevada. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled against her on both points. Res judicata only applies to final judgments, and the California interlocutory judgment said on its face that a final divorce judgment would not be entered until a year later, so it was not final and did not bar the husband's Nevada case. Because the wife claimed the interlocutory judgment had the force of a final ruling, it was her burden to prove California law gave it that effect, and she offered no such proof. As for residence, testimony from a Y.M.C.A. official, a Reno landlady, and the husband himself showed he lived continuously in Reno from November 1, 1930 with the intent to make it his permanent home, which was enough. The divorce granted to the husband was affirmed.