under Florida law, the Florida court had lacked personal jurisdiction over the wife because she had not generally appeared in the action. Id. at 603. Therefore, while the husband’s residence in Florida had enabled the Florida court to grant a divorce, the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the wife prevented its adjudication of personal rights, such as property division and alimony. Id. at 601-04. Because the Florida court had lacked personal jurisdiction over the wife, its judgment was not res judicata as to her alimony claim. Id. at 604. ¶ 19. Turning to the instant case, the parties do not dispute that the Washington court had subject-matter jurisdiction to grant Martin a divorce. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298-99, 63 S.Ct. 207, 213, 87 L.Ed. 279 (1942) (<HOLDING>). But the Washington court held that it lacked
holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in  502e1 is exclusive holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding that a state has subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce if one of the spouses is domiciled in the state holding that the state police is a state agency