Sherrer v. Sherrer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1948 · Family Law

334 U.S. 343 (1948)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawdivorce jurisdictionres judicatafull faith and creditdivorcedomicilejurisdictioncollateral attack

Facts

After leaving Massachusetts for Florida, petitioner filed for divorce in Florida, alleging cruelty and bona fide Florida residence. Respondent received notice, retained Florida counsel, entered a general appearance, filed an answer specifically denying her Florida residence, personally appeared at the hearing, and was represented throughout, although he did not cross-examine or offer rebuttal evidence on domicile. The Florida court expressly found petitioner to be a bona fide resident and that it had jurisdiction, then entered a divorce decree; respondent did not appeal in Florida. Later, in Massachusetts, respondent sued to have the Florida decree declared invalid, and the Massachusetts courts reexamined domicile, found petitioner was never domiciled in Florida, and refused to recognize the decree.

Issue

Whether, consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a sister state may permit a defendant who appeared and participated in the original divorce action to collaterally attack the rendering court's finding of domicile. More specifically, may Massachusetts relitigate Florida domicile after Florida entered a divorce decree in proceedings where respondent had a full opportunity to contest jurisdiction?

Rule

Where a divorce decree is rendered by a sister state in proceedings consistent with due process, the defendant participated in the proceedings, had full opportunity to litigate the jurisdictional issue of domicile, and the decree is not susceptible to the same collateral attack in the rendering state, full faith and credit requires other states to treat the jurisdictional finding as conclusive and bars collateral attack on that ground.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Morris moved from Ohio to Arizona and filed for divorce in Phoenix, alleging Arizona domicile. Her husband, Daniel Morris, hired Arizona counsel, entered a general appearance, filed an answer specifically denying domicile, and attended the hearing in person, but chose not to present evidence on residence. The Arizona court expressly found domicile and entered a divorce decree that Arizona law treats as final and not subject to the same collateral attack.

Daniel later sues in Ohio to declare the Arizona divorce void for lack of Elena's Arizona domicile. Should the Ohio court entertain that collateral attack?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a sister state must give full faith and credit to a divorce decree's jurisdictional determination of domicile when the defendant appeared, participated, had a full opportunity to contest jurisdiction, and the decree is not open to the same collateral attack in the rendering state. Daniel's failure to use his opportunity does not preserve a later collateral attack.