Goodman v. Goodman

10 Citing cases

  1. Scholla v. Scholla

    201 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1953)   Cited 18 times
    In Scholla v. Scholla, 201 F.2d 211 (D.C.Cir. 1953), the dissenting opinion in footnote 12 at page 217 hazards the view that there is little doubt the Supreme Court will find power in the forum state under the reserved question in Yarborough.

    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.

  2. Thomas v. Thomas

    103 S.E.2d 371 (N.C. 1958)   Cited 14 times

    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.

  3. Isserman v. Isserman.

    42 A.2d 642 (Ch. Div. 1945)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  4. In re Rubin

    160 B.R. 269 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 34 times
    Analyzing N.Y. E.P.T.L. § 7-1.9

    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.")

  5. Parker v. Parker

    497 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1973)   Cited 10 times
    Holding modification of child support order appropriate when Georgia resident filed petition against Tennessee resident who was no longer amenable to process of Georgia court

    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.

  6. Lopez v. Avery

    66 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1953)   Cited 34 times
    In Lopez v. Avery, 66 So.2d 689, a divorce had been granted by a Missouri court. The parties had entered into a property settlement that provided that the wife should have custody of the child of the marriage and that the father should pay the mother $100.00 a month for the child's support.

    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.

  7. Vincent v. Vincent

    38 N.C. App. 580 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 4 times

    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.

  8. Whitehead v. Whitehead

    185 S.E.2d 706 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 2 times
    In Whitehead v. Whitehead, 13 N.C. App. 393, 399, 185 S.E.2d 706 (1972), this Court held that a husband who has ratified, accepted or acquiesced in a child support decree by confession is estopped to challenge the validity of the judgment on the ground of informalities or irregularities in either the confession of judgment or the decree itself.

    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. * * *

  9. Jaworowski v. Kube

    276 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    [ 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.

  10. Levy v. Levy

    17 N.J. Misc. 324 (Ch. Div. 1939)   Cited 12 times

    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.