Worthley v. Worthley
Citation and Court
44 Cal. 2d 465 (1955), California Supreme Court
Facts
A New Jersey divorce decree required the husband to pay alimony. The husband moved to California and stopped paying. The wife sought to enforce the New Jersey alimony decree in California courts. At issue was whether California must enforce retroactive arrears (past-due installments) and whether it could also modify future installments based on changed circumstances.
Issue
Whether California must give full faith and credit to a New Jersey alimony decree, both for past-due installments that have vested under New Jersey law and for future installments subject to modification.
Holding
California must enforce vested, past-due alimony installments as a matter of full faith and credit; as to future installments, California may modify the decree under its own law if New Jersey law would also permit modification based on changed circumstances.
Rule / Doctrine
Installments of alimony that have accrued and become final judgments in the rendering state are entitled to full faith and credit and must be enforced without modification. Future installments of a modifiable alimony decree, however, may be modified by the enforcing forum if the rendering state would also permit modification — because there is no vested right in future modifiable alimony.
Significance
Worthley v. Worthley draws the critical distinction between retroactive obligations (vested, enforceable as of right under full faith and credit) and prospective modifiable obligations (enforceable and modifiable according to the rendering state’s standards). It is a leading case on the scope of full faith and credit for ongoing family law decrees.