VICKERS VS. VICKERS (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Plaintiff husband appealed from a judgment on the pleadings for defendant wife in his cruelty-based divorce action. Her answer pleaded in bar the April 15, 1920 Cabell County, West Virginia separate maintenance decree ($250 monthly) rendered in her suit, in which the husband had appeared and pleaded the identical cruelty facts now alleged in his Nevada complaint; his reply admitted those facts were pleaded and determined there, denying only the decree's legal effect. Held: because a wife at fault cannot obtain separate maintenance either under West Virginia law (Kittle v. Kittle, 102 S.E. 799) or under Nevada's statute (Stats. 1913, c. 97, p. 120, permitting the action only where the wife has a cause for divorce or has been deserted ninety days), the West Virginia decree necessarily adjudicated that the wife was not guilty of cruelty. Under Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, and Oklahoma v. Texas, 256 U.S. 70, a question of fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined cannot be relitigated between the same parties whether the second suit is on the same or a different cause of action; Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317, and Kelly v. Kelly, 118 Va. 376, applied the principle to maintenance decrees pleaded against later divorce suits. A reply that admits the decisive allegations and denies only their legal effect raises no triable issue, and judgment on the pleadings is the proper vehicle to test it. Affirmed; rehearing denied in a full opinion holding new jurisdictional theories may not be raised for the first time on rehearing and elaborating the issue-preclusion authorities (Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351; Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606).

In plain language

Dr. Vickers sued his wife in Nevada for an absolute divorce on the ground of cruelty. The problem: his wife had already sued him for separate maintenance in Cabell County, West Virginia, where he appeared and pleaded the very same cruelty facts as his defense - and on April 15, 1920, that court ruled against him and awarded the wife $250 a month. When the wife raised that decree as res judicata in the Nevada case, the husband's reply admitted the same facts had been pleaded there. The district court entered judgment for the wife on the pleadings, and the husband appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Under both West Virginia law (Kittle v. Kittle) and Nevada's separate maintenance statute (Stats. 1913, c. 97), a wife at fault cannot win separate maintenance - so the West Virginia award necessarily decided that Mrs. Vickers was not guilty of cruelty. A fact issue actually decided by a competent court cannot be relitigated between the same parties, even in a suit on a different cause of action; it does not matter that one case sought maintenance and the other a divorce. The court relied on U.S. Supreme Court authority, including Harding v. Harding, which reached the same result on nearly identical facts. Because the husband's reply admitted the decisive facts, judgment on the pleadings was proper. A rehearing was sought and denied in a second opinion reaffirming the res judicata analysis.