Litigation

Out-of-State Court Can Exercise Subject Matter Jurisdiction

It is appropriate for a foreign court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction where all of the parties have relocated to the foreign jurisdiction and where the defendant-mother fled the original jurisdiction on the eve of trial. McGovern et al. v. McGovern, FA030194664S, Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford, September 22, 2003.

The mother and maternal grandmother litigated a grandparent visitation issue in Arizona. The Arizona court held that, although the mother was not acting in the best interest of the subject child, it would not order a specific visitation schedule because the maternal grandmother had not seen the child in 2 years and because all parties had relocated to Connecticut. Thereafter, the maternal grandmother filed the Arizona order in Connecticut and sought a visitation order in Connecticut. The mother objected, arguing that the Connecticut court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and she was entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, the mother argued that it was not appropriate for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. The court disagreed and concluded that it was appropriate to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. It considered that the mother was represented by counsel during the entire litigation in Arizona and that the entire proceeding would have been completed in Arizona if the mother had not fled the jurisdiction with the child the evening prior to the visitation litigation. The court noted that the issue of grandparent visitation is important enough to warrant a full hearing and declined to grant the mother's summary judgment motion.

Long-arm Statute Valid over Husband

Personal jurisdiction over a husband in a Georgia matrimonial action is appropriate where the parties' only residence within the United States was in Georgia even though the parties lived only 4 of their 19 years of marriage in that state. Walters v. Walters, S03F1168,Ga. Sup.Ct., September 22, 2003.

The parties were married in Denmark in 1982 while the husband was enlisted in the military. The parties resided in Germany until they moved to Georgia after the husband was honorably discharged in 1993. They resided in Georgia until 1997 when they separated and the husband relocated to Florida to reside with his mother. On June 29, 2001, the wife filed a complaint for a divorce in Georgia. The husband was served in Florida. The husband, pro se, filed an answer wherein he objected to jurisdiction under the Georgia long-arm statute. The husband was aware that the parties were scheduled to appear in court for trial on October 9, 2001, but failed to appear. Thereafter, on November 6, 2001, the Georgia court entered a final judgment of divorce in favor of the wife and awarded the wife one-half of the husband's military pension and other benefits. On September 27, 2002, the husband obtained Georgia counsel and filed a motion for a rehearing or new trial or in the alternative, a motion to set aside the final judgment of divorce. The husband's motion was granted on December 17, 2002, because the record erroneously reflected that the he never received notice of the original trial date of October 9, 2001. Thereafter, on January 15, 2003, the court dismissed the divorce action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the wife appealed.

The appellate court reversed and held that Georgia was the most appropriate forum for the parties' divorce action. It considered that the parties' only residence within the United States during their marriage was in Georgia. It concluded that exercising jurisdiction over the husband conformed with the due process concepts of “fair play” and “substantial justice” because the husband could reasonably expect to be called into a Georgia court to litigate a matrimonial issue. It concluded that any inconvenience to the husband to travel to Georgia would be outweighed by the inconvenience to the wife if she were required to bring an action that arose out of the Georgia matrimonial domicile in another jurisdiction.

Wife Entitled to Spousal Support after Final Judgment

A wife is entitled to spousal support after a final judgment of divorce where, at the husband's urging, she did not work outside of the home and was unable to find employment to meet her financial needs and where the husband earns a significant salary. Patton v. Patton, No. 37,401-CA, No. 37,402-CA (Consolidated), La. Ct. App., 2nd Cir., September 24, 2003

The parties were married in 1985 and separated in November, 2001, when the husband vacated the marital residence. There were no children of the marriage but, at the husband's request, the wife did not work outside the home for the final 8 of the 17 years of the parties' marriage. The trial court declined to award the wife spousal support after the entry of the final judgment of divorce because it determined that she was capable of budgeting herself on her current income. The appellate court reversed. It considered that the wife had been unemployed for the last 8 years of the parties' marriage at the husband's request. It further considered that the husband's annual income as an attorney averaged approximately $200,000 per year while the wife could only find employment earning $10.50 per hour. The court awarded the wife $1000 per month and considered the wife's age (49), and that she was actively seeking better paying permanent employment, but was unable in the current economic climate to find such employment.

Out-of-State Court Can Exercise Subject Matter Jurisdiction

It is appropriate for a foreign court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction where all of the parties have relocated to the foreign jurisdiction and where the defendant-mother fled the original jurisdiction on the eve of trial. McGovern et al. v. McGovern, FA030194664S, Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford, September 22, 2003.

The mother and maternal grandmother litigated a grandparent visitation issue in Arizona. The Arizona court held that, although the mother was not acting in the best interest of the subject child, it would not order a specific visitation schedule because the maternal grandmother had not seen the child in 2 years and because all parties had relocated to Connecticut. Thereafter, the maternal grandmother filed the Arizona order in Connecticut and sought a visitation order in Connecticut. The mother objected, arguing that the Connecticut court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and she was entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, the mother argued that it was not appropriate for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. The court disagreed and concluded that it was appropriate to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. It considered that the mother was represented by counsel during the entire litigation in Arizona and that the entire proceeding would have been completed in Arizona if the mother had not fled the jurisdiction with the child the evening prior to the visitation litigation. The court noted that the issue of grandparent visitation is important enough to warrant a full hearing and declined to grant the mother's summary judgment motion.

Long-arm Statute Valid over Husband

Personal jurisdiction over a husband in a Georgia matrimonial action is appropriate where the parties' only residence within the United States was in Georgia even though the parties lived only 4 of their 19 years of marriage in that state. Walters v. Walters, S03F1168,Ga. Sup.Ct., September 22, 2003.

The parties were married in Denmark in 1982 while the husband was enlisted in the military. The parties resided in Germany until they moved to Georgia after the husband was honorably discharged in 1993. They resided in Georgia until 1997 when they separated and the husband relocated to Florida to reside with his mother. On June 29, 2001, the wife filed a complaint for a divorce in Georgia. The husband was served in Florida. The husband, pro se, filed an answer wherein he objected to jurisdiction under the Georgia long-arm statute. The husband was aware that the parties were scheduled to appear in court for trial on October 9, 2001, but failed to appear. Thereafter, on November 6, 2001, the Georgia court entered a final judgment of divorce in favor of the wife and awarded the wife one-half of the husband's military pension and other benefits. On September 27, 2002, the husband obtained Georgia counsel and filed a motion for a rehearing or new trial or in the alternative, a motion to set aside the final judgment of divorce. The husband's motion was granted on December 17, 2002, because the record erroneously reflected that the he never received notice of the original trial date of October 9, 2001. Thereafter, on January 15, 2003, the court dismissed the divorce action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the wife appealed.

The appellate court reversed and held that Georgia was the most appropriate forum for the parties' divorce action. It considered that the parties' only residence within the United States during their marriage was in Georgia. It concluded that exercising jurisdiction over the husband conformed with the due process concepts of “fair play” and “substantial justice” because the husband could reasonably expect to be called into a Georgia court to litigate a matrimonial issue. It concluded that any inconvenience to the husband to travel to Georgia would be outweighed by the inconvenience to the wife if she were required to bring an action that arose out of the Georgia matrimonial domicile in another jurisdiction.

Wife Entitled to Spousal Support after Final Judgment

A wife is entitled to spousal support after a final judgment of divorce where, at the husband's urging, she did not work outside of the home and was unable to find employment to meet her financial needs and where the husband earns a significant salary. Patton v. Patton, No. 37,401-CA, No. 37,402-CA (Consolidated), La. Ct. App., 2nd Cir., September 24, 2003

The parties were married in 1985 and separated in November, 2001, when the husband vacated the marital residence. There were no children of the marriage but, at the husband's request, the wife did not work outside the home for the final 8 of the 17 years of the parties' marriage. The trial court declined to award the wife spousal support after the entry of the final judgment of divorce because it determined that she was capable of budgeting herself on her current income. The appellate court reversed. It considered that the wife had been unemployed for the last 8 years of the parties' marriage at the husband's request. It further considered that the husband's annual income as an attorney averaged approximately $200,000 per year while the wife could only find employment earning $10.50 per hour. The court awarded the wife $1000 per month and considered the wife's age (49), and that she was actively seeking better paying permanent employment, but was unable in the current economic climate to find such employment.