“Our courts have no jurisdiction over the marital res where the residence requirement is not met. A judgment rendered without proof of this requirement is void for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”
How later courts described this case
- “Our courts have no jurisdiction over the marital res where the residence requirement is not met. A judgment rendered without proof of this requirement is void for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I agree with the majority opinion; however, I feel constrained to comment that there also is ample evidence to support a conclusion that the husband was in fact a domiciliary of Alabama. Put another way, the evidence and its legal import had to be resolved by the trial court. As the majority states, the trial court's resolution is supported by the evidence. For this court to reverse would be to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. This the law does not permit. Sutton v. Sutton , 55 Ala. App. 254 , 314 So.2d 707 .