# SSR 61-8: SSR 61-8. VALIDITY OF DIVORCE OBTAINED OUTSIDE OF STATE > Federal · Rulings · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_8 ## Section - **Citation:** SSR 61-8 - **Heading:** SSR 61-8. VALIDITY OF DIVORCE OBTAINED OUTSIDE OF STATE - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Rulings - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Social Security Rulings / OASI / Family Relationships / SSR 61-8 ## Text A and B were married in New York in 1916 and separated in 1937. They continued to reside in new York and A was still living and working in that State in 1946 when he went to Florida to obtain a divorce form B. When he found he could not readily meet the residence requirements for obtaining a divorce in Florida, he went to Nevada in July 1946 where he instituted a divorce action. Notice of this action was served on B solely by publication in a Nevada newspaper. B did not file any answer nor appear in court either personally or by attorney. A final decree of divorce was issued by the Nevada court in September 1946. A immediately returned to New York and continued to live and work in New York until he died domiciled in that State in September 1954. In June 1957, B applied for widow's insurance benefits on A's social security earnings record as his widow. In order to be entitled to the widow's insurance benefits for which she applied, B must, among other requirements all of which she met, meet the requirement that she was A;s widow at the time of his death. Under section 216(h)(1) of the Social Security Act, as pertinent in this case, an applicant for benefits is the widow of an insured individual if the courts of the State in which such insured individual was domiciled at the time of death would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married at the time the insured individual died. It is necessary, therefore, to determine whether the courts of New York would find that B is A's widow. The resolution of this question depends on whether the courts of New York would recognize as valid the divorce obtained by A in Nevada. Under the circumstances pertinent to this case, the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution does not require the courts of New York to recognize the validity of the Nevada divorce decree unless A had established the existence of a bona fide domicile in Nevada at the time of the proceedings. courts of New York would recognize as valid the divorce obtained by A in Nevada. Under the circumstances pertinent to this case, the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution does not require the courts of New York to recognize the validity of the Nevada divorce decree unless A had established the existence of a bona fide domicile in Nevada at the time of the proceedings. Under Nevada law, the plaintiff in a divorce action must show that, in addition to his physical residence in Nevada for the period required by statute, he intends to make that State his permanent home or, at least, to remain there for an indefinite period. Therefore, a decree of a Nevada court is void for lack of jurisdiction where the plaintiff, though physically present in Nevada for the required statutory period, had gone to Nevada solely for the purpose of securing a divorce and had no intention of remaining in that State permanently or for an indefinite time, if the service on the defendant of notice of the proceedings was limited to service by publication. A must have satisfied the court that he had been physically present in Nevada for the required statutory period and must also have certified that he intended to make that State his permanent, or at least indefinite, residence. However, A originally went to Florida to secure a divorce and then, when he found he could not meet the residence requirements in that State, went to Nevada for the same purpose. The fact that A was living and working in New York immediately before the divorce action was instituted and immediately after the decree of divorce was issued, is evidence that he had no intention of becoming a permanent or indefinite resident of Nevada. Consequently, the Nevada court did not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce decree, and such decree is null and void and would not be recognized by the New York courts. ing in New York immediately before the divorce action was instituted and immediately after the decree of divorce was issued, is evidence that he had no intention of becoming a permanent or indefinite resident of Nevada. Consequently, the Nevada court did not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce decree, and such decree is null and void and would not be recognized by the New York courts. It is held , therefore, that B is A's legal widow and is entitled to the widow's insurance benefits for which she filed application. ## Nearby sections - [SSR 60-9 SSR 60-9. STATUS OF CHILD IN THE WOMB](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_60_9.md) - [SSR 61-8 SSR 61-8. VALIDITY OF DIVORCE OBTAINED OUTSIDE OF STATE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_8.md) - [SSR 61-9 SSR 61-9. VALIDITY OF COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE WHERE PARTIES INTEND CEREMONIAL MARRIAGE IN FUTURE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_9.md) - [SSR 61-63 SSR 61-63. STATUS OF CHILD UNDER UNFULFILLED CONTRACT TO ADOPT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_63.md) - [SSR 61-65 SSR 61-65. EFFECT OF INVALID DIVORCE WHERE PARTIES ARE ESTOPPED TO DENY ITS VALIDITY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_65.md) - [SSR 62-35 SSR 62-35. RELATIONSHIP -- PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OF CHILD BORN AFTER DEATH OF WORKER](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_35.md) - [SSR 62-36 SSR 62-36. RELATIONSHIP -- CONTINUATION OF VALID MARRIAGE AFTER SUBSEQUENT BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_36.md) - [SSR 62-37 SSR 62-37. RELATIONSHIP -- PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE LAST MARRIAGE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_37.md) - [SSR 62-47 SSR 62-47: Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_47.md) - [SSR 62-68 SSR 62-68. RELATIONSHIP -- MARRIAGE AFTER MEXICAN "MAIL-ORDER" DIVORCE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_68.md) - [SSR 63-20 SSR 63-20: SECTION 216(h). -- RELATIONSHIP -- VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN FIRST COUSINS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_63_20.md) - [SSR 63-47 SSR 63-47: SECTION 216(b). -- RELATIONSHIP -- WIFE'S INSURANCE BENEFITS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_63_47.md) - [SSR 63-48 SSR 63-48: SECTION 216(h)(1)(B). -- RELATIONSHIP -- TRIBAL CUSTOM MARRIAGE -- DEFECT IN PROCEDURE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_63_48.md) - [SSR 63-49 SSR 63-49: SECTION 216(h)(1)(B). -- RELATIONSHIP -- DE FACTO MARRIAGE RESULTING FROM JAPANESE "CUSTOM MARRIAGE"](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_63_49.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_8. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.