FARNHAM VS. FARNHAM (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Thompson, J. In an action on a sister-state money judgment, the court held the Arizona judgment - final and rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in which the debtor appeared - was entitled to full faith and credit, and Nevada could not look behind it to examine the underlying cause of action absent a challenge to jurisdiction, fraud, or satisfaction (Biel v. Godwin, 69 Nev. 189, 245 P.2d 997 (1952); Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 (1908)). Colby v. Colby, 78 Nev. 150, 369 P.2d 1019 (1962), was inapposite. Alternatively, under the divisible-divorce doctrine (Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948); Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416 (1957); Summers v. Summers, 69 Nev. 83, 241 P.2d 1097 (1952)), the ex parte Nevada decree, silent as to alimony, did not terminate the wife's support rights, and Michigan (whose law permits post-ex-parte-divorce support, Malcolm v. Malcolm, 345 Mich. 720, 76 N.W.2d 831 (1956)) was entitled to full faith and credit. The court rejected Perry v. Perry, 51 Wash.2d 358, 318 P.2d 968 (1957). The husband's cross-appeal was dismissed: he prevailed below and was not an aggrieved party (NRCP 72(a)), and no appeal lies from an opinion. Reversed with directions.

In plain language

Gerald and Grace Farnham married in Michigan. Gerald started a Michigan divorce, abandoned it, moved to Nevada, and got a Nevada default divorce in 1958 that said nothing about alimony. In 1960 the Michigan court granted Grace a divorce plus alimony and money in lieu of dower. Grace then found Gerald in Arizona, sued him there on the Michigan judgment, and won an Arizona money judgment for $7,500; Gerald appeared with a lawyer and did not appeal. Grace next sued in Nevada to collect on the Arizona judgment. The Nevada trial court refused to enforce the Arizona judgment, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It held this was simply a suit on a final out-of-state money judgment, which Nevada must give full faith and credit; the court could not look behind it because Gerald never challenged Arizona's jurisdiction, alleged fraud, or claimed it was paid. The court added that even looking deeper, the divisible-divorce doctrine meant the Nevada divorce (silent on alimony) did not end Grace's support rights, so the Michigan support judgment stood. The court ordered judgment for Grace for $7,550 with 7% interest and dismissed Gerald's cross-appeal, since a party who wins below cannot appeal and no appeal lies from a court's opinion.