Massachusetts Grounds Divorce Decree Military Retirement Pay Lacked Jurisdiction Lawyers Attorneys

SUSAN J. SIMMONS vs. STEVEN R. SIMMONS.appeared through counsel in South Carolina and is
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTSprecluded from relitigating the same matter in
January 20, 1995Massachusetts.  While the portion of the
During the pendency of a complaint for divorceMassachusetts judgment which adjudged a divorce is
brought by the wife in Massachusetts, the husbanda nullity, there is no reason to invalidate the
filed an action for divorce in South Carolina. Despiteremainder of the judgment.  Further the Court finds
the wife's request for a continuance on the groundthat "General Laws, c. 208, § 34, as amended
that a prior action for divorce was pending inthrough St. 1990, c. 467, specifically provides:  "Upon
Massachusetts, and a claim that the South Carolinadivorce or upon a complaint in an action brought at
court did not have jurisdiction, a judge of the Familyany time after a divorce, whether such a divorce has
Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State ofbeen adjudged in this commonwealth or another
South Carolina on April 13, 1992, "ordered adjudgedjurisdiction, the court of the commonwealth, provided
and  decreed that the defendant  is entitled to athere is personal jurisdiction over both parties, may
divorce." The court issued no order regardingmake a judgment for either of the parties to pay
custody, alimony, support, or division of property.alimony to the other. In addition to or in lieu of a
The South Carolina court determined that it hadjudgment to pay alimony, the court may assign to
jurisdiction, that the wife's divorce had been pendingeither husband or wife all or any part of the estate
since 1987, "that the sister state (Massachusetts) hasof the other, including but not limited to . . . . military
failed to give any reason for its failure to issue aretirement benefits if qualified under and to the
ruling in this matter" although a hearing had been heldextent provided by federal law. . . ."  The wife's
in December, 1991, and that the husband "is entitledcomplaint sought custody, alimony, and support as
to his divorce."  Subsequent to that order, awell as a divorce. The South Carolina judgment did
Massachusetts Probate Court, on August 19, 1992,not purport to settle any of these matters. Since the
issued a judgment of divorce nisi which, if valid, wouldMassachusetts Probate Court had personal jurisdiction
have become absolute ninety days thereafter.  Thatover both parties, the South Carolina judgment did
judgment also provided for visitation by the husbandnot prevent the Massachusetts Probate Court from
and a division of marital assets, including theadjudicating the other questions encompassed in the
husband's military retirement pay.  The husband filedwife's complaint.
a motion for relief from judgment in the lower court,Conclusion:
claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The lower court deniedThis Court concludes that the portion of the August
the motion, and the husband sought review of that19, 1992, judgment nisi which purported to adjudicate
decision.a divorce is deleted. With that exception, the denial
Issue:of the motion for relief from judgment is affirmed.
- Whether the probate court lacked subject matterDisclaimer:
jurisdiction to hear the case?These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law
The Court held that it is true that the South CarolinaGroup.  They represent the firm's unofficial views of
divorce judgment is entitled to full faith and creditthe Justices' opinions.  The original opinions should be
and that the judgment has established with finalityconsulted for their authoritative content.
the status of the plaintiff's marriage.  The wife