Justice Traynor's opinion for the court explained divisible divorce and that an ex parte divorce in Idaho did not foreclose a subsequent proceeding in California for alimony
How later courts described this case
- Justice Traynor's opinion for the court explained divisible divorce and that an ex parte divorce in Idaho did not foreclose a subsequent proceeding in California for alimony
- “Of the thirty-three jurisdictions that have passed on this question, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have held that a wife may obtain support or alimony following the entry of an ex parte divorce”.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I concur in the order for the sole reason that, in my opinion, the facts are analogous to those in Baldwin v. Baldwin, 28 Cal.2d 406 [ 170 P.2d 670 ], where the controlling rule of law is stated at page 416 et seq.