New Jersey courts have held that a foreign decree which may be prospectively modified is not so final that it merits full faith and credit as to future installments. Conwell v. Conwell, 1949, 3 N.J. 266, 69 A.2d 712; Cf. Goodman v. Goodman, 1937, 194 A. 866, 15 N.J.Misc. 716. See also Sackler v. Sackler, Fla., 1950, 47 So.2d 292, 18 A.L.R.2d 856.
The full faith and credit clause does not forbid this result; the foreign decree has no constitutional claim to a greater effect outside the State than it has within the State." Lopez v. Avery (Fla.), 66 So.2d 689; Goodman v. Goodman, 15 N.J. Misc. 716, 194 A. 866. Both Nevada and North Carolina have statutory authority for the modification of decrees for the support of a minor child or children.
It is only where the fraud is such as results in the erroneous assumption or repudiation of jurisdiction or in the denial of due process, either substantive or procedural, that the resulting decree is left unprotected by the full faith and credit clause, Art. IV Sec. 1, of the federal Constitution. See Nichols v. Nichols, 25 N.J.Eq. 60; Davis v. Headley, 22 N.J.Eq. 115, 124; Wilson v. Anthony, 72 N.J.Eq. 836, 840, 66 A. 907, affirmed 75 N.J.Eq. 299, 78 A. 1135; Smith v. Swart, 103 N.J.L. 150, 134 A. 755; Dringer v. Erie Ry., 42 N.J.Eq. 573, 580, 8 A. 811, affirmed 43 N.J.Eq. 701, 13 A. 664; Goodman v. Goodman, 194 A. 866, 15 N.J.Misc. 716; Wolff v. Wolff, 134 N.J.Eq. 8, 34 A.2d 150; Abbott v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 793; Mahoney v. State Insurance Co., 135 Iowa 570, 110 N.W. 1041, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 490; 31 Am.Jur. ‘Judgments' sec. 595, p. 191; Annotations: 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 905, 88 A.L.R. 1201; 2 Beale: Conf. of Laws (1935) p. 1401; Goodrich: Conf. of Laws (Hornbook) p. 461; Vol. 15, Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., ‘Extrinsic or Collateral Fraud’, p. 901. Complainant contends that the alimony and maintenance provisions of the Nevada decree, insofar as they contain arbitrary limitations upon defendant's future obligation to support his wife and son, are invalid as essentially inconsistent with the separate maintenance decree, and should therefore be disregarded because violative of the full faith and credit clause, Art. IV, Sec. 1, of the federal Constitution.
Liquidation orders do not magically change the nature of debts and obligations in the ordinary case. Kemper Reinsurance Co. v. Corcoran (In re Midland Ins. Co.) 167 A.D.2d 75, 80, 569 N.Y.S.2d 951, 954 (1st Dep't 1991), aff'd, 79 N.Y.2d 253, 582 N.Y.S.2d 58, 590 N.E.2d 1186 (1992); accord Goodman v. Goodman, 15 N.J.Misc. 716, 720-21, 194 A. 866, 869 (N.J.Ch. 1937) ("[b]ecause of the continuing nature of obligations, orders and decrees for their liquidation and enforcement are of but temporary application. They do not create or even modify the obligation, but merely have to do with their enforcement.")
Decrees for child support and custody are usually regarded, in fact, as being impermanent in character, and hence, by their very nature, are res judicata of the issues only so long as the facts and circumstances of the parties remain the same as when the decree was rendered. Goodman v. Goodman, 194 A. 866, 15 N.J. Misc. 716; Setzer v. Setzer, 251 Wis. 234, 29 N.W.2d 62; Turnage v. Tyler, 183 Miss. 318, 184 So. 52, and authorities hereinafter cited. Compare Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483.
Decrees for child support and custody are usually regarded, in fact, as being impermanent in character, and hence, by their very nature, are res judicata of the issues only so long as the facts and circumstances of the parties remain the same as when the decree was rendered. Goodman v. Goodman, 194 A. 866, 15 N.J. Misc. 716; Setzer v. Setzer, 251 Wis. 234, 29 N.W.2d 62; Turnage v. Tyler, 183 Miss. 318, 184 So. 52, and authorities hereinafter cited. Compare Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483.
In Thomas v. Thomas, 248 N.C. 269, 103 S.E.2d 371 (1958), the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether or not the North Carolina courts had the power to modify a custody and child support decree rendered by a Nevada court. The court noted that "`[a] court . . . has the power to modify a foreign decree indirectly by ordering the husband to pay more or less than was required by the foreign decree, where both states have the power to modify decrees . . . . The foreign decree has no constitutional claim to a greater effect outside the State than it has within the State.'" 248 N.C. at 272, 103 S.E.2d at 373; 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation 987 at 1125; Lopez v. Avery, 66 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1953); Goodman v. Goodman, 15 N.J. Misc. 716, 194 A. 866 (1937). The court held that the North Carolina courts were bound by the Nevada decree unless the plaintiff shows such changed conditions and circumstances to justify an increase in the allowance made by the Nevada court.
Nonresidents have the right to bring an action in our courts as one of the privileges guaranteed to citizens of the several states by the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 2. Howle v. Express, Inc., 237 N.C. 667, 75 S.E.2d 732 (1953); Bank v. Appleyard, 238 N.C. 145, 77 S.E.2d 783 (1953); Thomas v. Thomas, 248 N.C. 269, 103 S.E.2d 371 (1958). In Thomas v. Thomas, supra, Denny, J., later C.J., quoted with approval from Goodman v. Goodman, 15 N.J. Misc. 716, 194 A. 866, as follows: "`So far as jurisdiction over the defendant is concerned, the cause of action differs in no respect from a creditor's cause of action for collection of an ordinary debt. * * *
[ Ibid.] Cf. Hudson v. Hudson, 36 N.J. 549, 558-59, 178 A.2d 202 (1962); Isserman v. Isserman, 23 N.J. Misc. 174, 181-83, 42 A.2d 642 (Ch. 1945), rev'd on other grounds, 138 N.J. Eq. 140, 46 A.2d 799 (E. A. 1946); Goodman v. Goodman, 15 N.J. Misc. 716, 720, 194 A. 866 (Ch. 1937). We need not further address the applicability here of this principle for several reasons.
It is consequently within the well settled rules of comity and propriety that this court should grant her the relief sought. See Goodman v. Goodman, 194 A. 866, 15 N.J.Misc. 716, 721. Since the court is empowered by the amendment to grant final relief upon the bill, it must follow that ad interim relief may be granted, inasmuch as the proofs disclose the necessity therefor.