Hicks v. Hicks

Citations

• 69 Wash. 627
• 125 P. 945
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 966

Syllabus

<p>Divorce—Decree—Collateral Attack. An action for a divorce and the division of community property, seeking also the annulment of a foreign divorce fraudulently obtained by the defendant, constitutes a collateral attack on such decree, the annulment of which is a mere incident to the primary purpose of the action.</p> <p>Same—Service or Summons—Fraud. A foreign decree of divorce, valid on its face, by a court of general jurisdiction, adjudicating a valid service of summons, is conclusive on collateral attack and cannot be impeached for fraud.</p> <p>Divorce—Community Property—Division—Subsequent Action. Where a divorce obtained by a husband made no mention of community property, the title thereto vests in the parties as tenants in common; and the wife has a right of action for a division or in lieu thereof some provision for maintenance.</p> <p>Same — Subsequent Action — Limitations — Tenants in Common. A decree of divorce making no mention of community property is not an assertion of an adverse claim thereto; and as the husband holds possession as a tenant in common, limitations do not run against the wife’s right of action for a division.</p>