PORTNOY VS. PORTNOY (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Thompson, J. Applying the divisible-divorce doctrine (Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 350 U.S. 568 (1956); Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416 (1957)), the court held that a valid ex parte divorce entered at the domicile of only one spouse does not automatically end the other spouse's right to support. A former wife who obtained a final ex parte California divorce, and who had no opportunity to litigate support in that action, may later maintain a support action in Nevada. The court resolved the choice-of-law question by looking to the law of the wife's domicile at the time of divorce; because California permits a former wife to obtain support after an ex parte divorce (Hudson v. Hudson, 52 Cal.2d 735, 344 P.2d 295 (1959)), Nevada must honor that view, consistent with Summers v. Summers, 69 Nev. 83, 241 P.2d 1097 (1952), and Farnham v. Farnham, 80 Nev. 180, 391 P.2d 26 (1964). The court rejected the res judicata and waiver rationales of contrary authority. NRS 125.150 governs only domestic divorces in which the court has jurisdiction to award alimony. Affirmed.

In plain language

This case asked whether a former wife who had already obtained a one-sided (ex parte) California divorce could later go to court in Nevada and get support from her former husband. She had not had a chance to ask for support in the California case. The Nevada trial court said she could, and awarded her support. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Under the 'divisible divorce' doctrine, a valid divorce granted at the home state of only one spouse ends the marriage but does not automatically wipe out the other spouse's right to support. Because the wife never had an opportunity to litigate support in her divorce, she could seek it later. To decide whether she was entitled to support, the court looked to the law of the state where she lived at the time of the divorce - California - which allows a former wife to obtain support after an ex parte divorce. Nevada honored that rule. The court rejected arguments that the divorce itself, or waiver, should bar her support claim.