Plaintiff and defendant, who wished to marry, persuaded defendant's wife to agree to a Mexican "mail order" divorce. The spouses executed and delivered powers of attorney to counsel residing in Mexico, where a divorce was granted and the decree mailed back to New York. Neither of the parties went to Mexico, nor did the decree of the Mexican court recite presence or domicile of either spouse. Upon learning that the decree had been granted, plaintiff and defendant were married in Virginia and then returned to New York, their state of domicile. In 1946, the plaintiff commenced this action, asking for separation and support, alleging that she was duly married to the defendant and that he had abandoned her. The trial court found for the plaintiff, and this judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the ground that the defendant was estopped to impeach the divorce decree obtained by him in the foreign jurisdiction. On further appeal, held, reversed. Inasmuch as there was no "color of jurisdiction" to support the Mexican decree, neither party having appeared in the proceeding, defendant was not estopped to show its invalidity. Caldwell v. Caldwell, (N.Y. I948) 8I N.E. (2d) 60.
Charles E. Becraft S.Ed.,
CONFLICT OF LAWS-APPLICATION OF ESTOPPEL TO INVALID DIVORCES-MEXICAN "MAIL ORDER" DIVORCE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss4/9