Under recognition of out-of-state divorce, which factor is needed for personal jurisdiction over the defendant for status?

• A. P must domicile in the state
• B. D must domicile in the state
• C. The plaintiff must be resident in the state for 6 months
• D. The defendant must be served in person

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that recognizing an out-of-state divorce for status hinges on whether the forum court has personal jurisdiction to determine the parties’ marital status. For this, the plaintiff’s connection to the recognizing state is what matters: the plaintiff must be domiciled in the recognizing state. When the plaintiff is domiciled there, the court has a basis to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for the status issue, allowing the foreign divorce to be recognized for purposes of status.

Why this works best: full faith and credit looks to whether the rendering state had proper jurisdiction and due process when the divorce was granted, and the recognition action in the forum relies on the plaintiff’s domicile to establish that the forum can adjudicate the status question. The defendant’s own domicile, a six‑month residency rule, or simply serving the defendant in the forum do not govern this particular recognition-for-status scenario in the same way.