It appearing that this case hinges on questions of Florida law
with respect to which there seem to be no clear controlling
precedents in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida, this
Court, on its own motion, certifies certain questions to the
Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Rule 4.61 of the Florida
Appellate Rules. Pp.
375 U. S.
249-252.
Reported below: 147 W.Va. 269,
127 S.E.2d
385.
PER CURIAM.
This Court, on its own motion, hereby certifies to the Supreme
Court of Florida, pursuant to Rule 4.61, Florida Appellate Rules,
the questions of law hereinafter set forth.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, Marguerite Loretta Aldrich, was granted a divorce
from M. S. Aldrich by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, by
decree entered on May 31, 1945. The jurisdiction of that court to
award the divorce was not contested then, nor is it contested in
this action.
Page 375 U. S. 250
The divorce decree awarded alimony to the plaintiff, in the
following provision:
"4. That the defendant, Moriel Simeon Aldrich, be and he is
hereby ordered and required to pay to the plaintiff. Marguerite
Loretta Aldrich, the monthly sum of $250.00 as and for her
permanent alimony, said sum to be paid to her monthly at the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Miami, Dade County, Florida,
and in the event the defendant, Moriel Simeon Aldrich, shall
predecease the plaintiff, Marguerite Loretta Aldrich, said monthly
sum of $250.00 shall, upon the death of said defendant, become a
charge upon his estate during her lifetime; and this Court retains
jurisdiction in respect thereto. . . ."
There was no prior express agreement between the parties that
the estate would be bound. Subsequently, the divorce defendant
petitioned the Florida court for a rehearing, which was denied, but
the court reduced alimony from $250 to $215 per month. No appeal
was taken by either party.
M. S. Aldrich died testate, a resident of Putnam County, West
Virginia, on May 29, 1958. His will was duly probated in Putnam
County, and petitioner filed a claim against the estate for alimony
which accrued after the death of M. S. Aldrich. The appraisal of
the estate showed assets of $7,283.50. Petitioner commenced this
action in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, in
order to have her rights in the estate determined. She also
demanded that certain allegedly fraudulent transfers of real and
personal property made by M. S. Aldrich be set aside and the
properties which were the subject of such transfers administered as
a part of the estate, so as to be subject to her claim for alimony
under the Florida divorce decree.
Page 375 U. S. 251
The defendants are identified as follows: William T. Aldrich is
a son of M. S. Aldrich and petitioner, and Natalie Aldrich is the
wife of William T. Aldrich. Angela Aldrich is the widow of M. S.
Aldrich. M. S. Aldrich & Associates, Inc., is a corporation
which petitioner alleges was principally, if not solely, owned by
M. S. Aldrich during his lifetime or until shortly before his
death. Aldrich-Slicer Company is a corporation, one of the
organizers of which was William T. Aldrich. John C. White is
executor of the last will and testament of M. S. Aldrich.
On motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the Circuit
Court of Putnam County held that the decree of the Florida divorce
court was invalid and unenforceable insofar as it purported to
impose upon the estate of M. S. Aldrich an obligation to pay
alimony accruing after his death. On appeal, the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the decision of the lower court,
one judge dissenting. The majority and minority opinions of the
West Virginia court are reported in
Aldrich v. Aldrich,
147 W.Va. 269,
127 S.E.2d
385. Review by this Court was sought and obtained on the basis
of Art. IV, ยง 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which
provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State
to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every
other State." The case was heard on October 24, 1963, and on
November 12, 1963, the Court issued a per curiam opinion,
375 U. S. 75,
pursuant to which the following questions are certified to the
Supreme Court of Florida:
1. Is a decree of alimony that purports to bind the estate of a
deceased husband permissible, in the absence of an express prior
agreement between the two spouses authorizing or contemplating such
a decree?
2. If such a decree is not permissible, does the error of the
court entering it render that court without subject matter
jurisdiction with regard to that aspect of the cause?
Page 375 U. S. 252
3. If subject matter jurisdiction is thus lacking, may that
defect be challenged in Florida, after the time for appellate
review has expired, (i) by the representatives of the estate of the
deceased husband or (ii) by persons to whom the deceased husband
has allegedly transferred part of his property without
consideration?
4. If the decree is impermissible but not subject to such attack
in Florida for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by those
mentioned in subparagraph 3, may an attack be successfully based on
this error of law in the rendition of the decree?