In Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948), a wife brought an action for separation in New York against her husband whom had abandoned her. She obtained an award of alimony. Id. Shortly thereafter, the husband moved to Nevada, filed for divorce, received it, and stopped paying alimony. Id. at 542-43. The U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, New York had to respect Nevada's dissolution of the marriage relationship, but Nevada could not remove the wife's intangible property interest - the judgment for alimony - without in personam jurisdiction. Id. at 549. The United States Supreme Court considered a situation where a husband and wife were married and lived in the State of New York. The husband abandoned his wife, and the wife filed an action for, and received, a decree of separation. A New York court awarded the wife permanent alimony. The husband then went to Nevada and filed an action for, and received, a decree of divorce. The Nevada court made no award of alimony. The Supreme Court concluded that the Nevada court could not constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over the wife, because she had no contacts with Nevada. However, the Court acknowledged that the interests of a State -- such as its interests over marital relations -- extends to its domiciliaries. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the divorce was divisible -- the result was "to give effect to the Nevada decree insofar as it affects marital status" but also give effect to the New York decree on the issue of alimony. In Estin the husband and wife were married and lived in New York until they separated. The wife brought an action in New York for separation, and the husband entered a general appearance. The New York court granted the separation and awarded the wife alimony. The husband then went to Nevada and instituted an action for divorce. The wife was notified of the action by constructive service, but entered no appearance. The Nevada court granted the husband a divorce, but made no provision for alimony. The Supreme Court found that the Nevada court did not have in personam jurisdiction over the wife because she was not a resident of Nevada nor had she submitted to the jurisdiction of the Nevada court. The Supreme Court held that this situation made the divorce "divisible" -- accommodating the interest of both states but restricting each state to the matters of "dominant concern."