Williams v. North Carolina (Williams II)

Supreme Court of the United States · 1945 · Family Law

325 U.S. 226 (1945)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawdivisible divorcedomicileFull Faith and Credit Clausedivorcejurisdictional factcollateral attackex parte divorce

Facts

Petitioners had been long-time residents of North Carolina. They went to Nevada, stayed there in an auto-court for transients, filed for divorce as soon as Nevada law permitted, obtained divorces, married each other immediately, and promptly returned to North Carolina to live together there. In the North Carolina prosecution for bigamous cohabitation, they relied on exemplified copies of the Nevada divorce proceedings. North Carolina submitted to the jury whether petitioners had actually acquired bona fide Nevada domiciles, instructing that if they went to Nevada solely to obtain divorces and intended to return to North Carolina when they got them, they never lost their North Carolina domiciles or acquired Nevada domiciles.

Issue

Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required North Carolina to recognize Nevada divorce decrees when North Carolina, contrary to Nevada's finding, determined that petitioners had not acquired bona fide domiciles in Nevada. Also at issue was whether North Carolina's procedures and allocation of proof gave insufficient respect to the Nevada decrees.

Rule

A judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in another state only if the court rendering it had jurisdiction to render it. In divorce cases, jurisdiction is founded on domicile; therefore, a sister state may collaterally impeach an ex parte divorce decree by proving that the divorcing state lacked bona fide domicile, even if the decree recites domicile. The decree's finding of domicile is entitled to respect and the burden of undermining it rests heavily on the assailant, but the finding is not conclusive against a state that was not a party and is seriously affected by the decree.

🔒

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.

Lena Morris lived in Georgia for twenty years before traveling to Idaho, where she rented a motel room for seven weeks, obtained an ex parte divorce from her nonappearing husband, married Noah Pike two days later, and returned to Atlanta. Georgia later charges Lena and Noah with bigamous cohabitation and offers evidence that Lena told friends before leaving that she was going to Idaho only long enough to get divorced and come back home.

Is Georgia constitutionally required to treat the Idaho divorce decree as conclusive?

Explanation. A sister state need not accept an ex parte divorce decree if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction. In divorce, jurisdiction rests on bona fide domicile. The majority held that another state seriously affected by the decree may collaterally reexamine domicile, even if the decree recites domicile. Public policy alone is not enough; the key is lack of jurisdiction through absence of bona fide domicile.