Maryland Divorce Mental Cruelty Lawyers Proceedings Grounds Extreme Attorneys

COLBY v. COLBYjurisdiction. The court found that the wife was
Court of Appeals of Marylandnever a bona fide resident of Nevada and, more
May 20, 1958importantly, that the husband had never made an
Benjamin and Sarah Colby were married inappearance in the Nevada action.  The factual
Chicago in 1927, had three children, and livedpoint of view, the husband was not in Nevada
together in Chevy Chase for over four yearswhen his wife filed suit and therefore did not have
prior to March 4, 1955. On the latter date, thethe "opportunity" referred to by the wife to
wife, without prior notice to her husband, tookdefend the action on the jurisdictional question. Of
their fifteen year old daughter and went to thecourse, he could have remained in Nevada to
home of the wife's mother in Glencoe, Illinois, andcontest the suit but there is no evidence that he
immediately thereafter, went to Las Vegas,definitely knew when the wife would file suit.
Nevada. Exactly six weeks after her arrival, sheBesides he was under no legal compulsion to
filed suit for a divorce in Nevada on the groundremain.  Second, it could be argued that the
of extreme mental cruelty. She made plans tohusband had the opportunity to employ a Nevada
return to Washington after the divorceattorney to contest the divorce. Such an
proceedings by making a reservation at aopportunity, however, was not sufficient to bar
Washington hotel. On June 9, the husband wasthe husband from subsequently attacking the
served in Washington with Nevada process, anddecree collaterally in this State.  The court cited
twenty-one days later, the Nevada court grantedseveral cases in which one party was held to
a decree of divorce.have been barred from contesting an out-of-state
The husband made no appearance and thedivorce because that party had either been
divorce was granted. The husband later filed anserved in the divorce-granting state or had made
action for a divorce a mensa et thoro in Maryland.an appearance to contest jurisdiction. In this case,
The Maryland trial court declared the Nevadathe court found that the husband was not served
divorce null and void and granted the husband'sin Nevada and made no appearance there. Thus,
petition for a divorce.  Appellant wife soughtthe husband was entitled to relitigate the issue of
review of a decision by the Circuit Court forjurisdiction.
Montgomery County Maryland.Disclaimer:
Whether the husband is estopped from collaterallyThese summaries are provided by the SRIS Law
attacking the decree of the Nevada court?Group.  They represent the firm's unofficial views
The Court rejected the wife's claim that theof the Justices' opinions.  The original opinions
husband was barred by the doctrine of resshould be consulted for their authoritative content.
judicata from questioning the Nevada court's