My name is Jon D. Alexander, Esq. and I am an Orange County, California Divorce Attorney. This article is the second in a series outlining the divorce process in California. If you have questions about this article or about any divorce or family law question please contact me now. My email address is Jon@oc-familylawyers.com. And please click on the links below to sign up for my Free Divorce Report it is chock full of useful information youll need if you are planning a divorce or find yourself embroiled in a one. Thank you for reading.
In this article we will delve into the complexities of personal jurisdiction. Similar to subject matter jurisdiction, which we discussed last time, there is a concept of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers not to the courts power over a specific subject matter rather its the courts power over a specific person. In order for court to order someone to pay money it must have personal jurisdiction over the person. In California this is a constitutional question. California has a long arm statute (Code of Civil Procedure 410.10) that is consistent with the constitutional reach of the federal due process. So in actuality the California personal jurisdiction question is the same as federal constitutional law.
The Minimum contacts rule is the most important part of California personal jurisdiction. Minimum contacts is defined by a United States Supreme Court case called International Shoe. The Supreme Court held that there are specific to fundamental principles of fair play and substantial justice that warrant a specific state exercising jurisdiction against a person or over a person. What does this mean? Well there are some specific cases on point that will explain when exercising personal jurisdiction over a party to a family matter is appropriate and when it isnt.
Kulko vs. Superior Court is a seminal Supreme Court case in this area of law. The facts: Mother and father get a divorce in New York, mother moves to California and father has custody of the children. After a few years, at the childrens request, father puts the children on an airplane and sends them to California to live with their mother. Mother thereafter serves father with an OSC (order to show cause) for child support, and claims that the mere act of putting the children on the airplane to come to California triggered the minimum contacts rule such as would allow the California court to exercise jurisdiction.
Here the US Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals in this case holding that there were no minimum contacts, no purposeful acts, no financial benefit and no business conducted or tort committed in California.
The Supreme Court held that it was wrong to exercise personal jurisdiction in this matter because the lower court was applying rules that typically apply to tort law and civil litigation to a family law case. The Supreme Court held that the rules should be different for family law. This is why Kulko is so important because Supreme Court said that we cannot use the tort analysis on a family law case. The reason the Supreme Court ruled this way and the policy behind the ruling is: that we want parents to share their kids in other states with the other out-of-state parent. The Supreme Court didnt think it was right to subject one parent to potential civil liability just because they were sharing custody.
The Jamshid-Negad case: similar to Kulko but a tort case, not a family law case (it was a car accident), and as such, the court was allowed personal jurisdiction.
The Modlin case: A doctor conducting some business in California while visiting his child. The Doctor attended three medical conferences in California. His wife used this as a basis for personal jurisdiction. The court ruled that personal jurisdiction was improper because the doctor was primarily in California to visit his children. The court ruled this way because of the same policy in Kulko, the court wanted to encourage visitation not punish the parent. The court examined the reason for the visit and determined that it was for mixed purpose, business and child visitation, but because the primary reason was child visitation, no personal jurisdiction. However, had the primary purpose been business the Court wouldve properly exercised personal jurisdiction.
The Muckle case. The facts: wife and husband used to be California residents. However, Husband moved to Georgia and three years later wife files for divorce in California. A husband files a motion to quash because hes a Georgia resident now. California trial court ruled that the husband had an economic connection with California; however, the Court of Appeals reversed.
Minimum contacts are determined at the time of the preceding. Its all about timing. This is a timing case. So the Court of Appeals held that while Mr. Muckle couldnt stop the divorce because California had subject matter jurisdiction, he could stop the payment of money because California did not have personal jurisdiction over him.
The Burnham Case: Gotcha Jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction will be valid if the party is physically present in the state when he is served. Courts have ruled this is not a minimum contacts decision; rather its an independent jurisdictional rule and minimum contacts do not apply. So regardless of Kulko, if youre served in California you are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the courts in California.
The bottom line here is that the above cases are all about personal jurisdiction not subject matter jurisdiction. Lets take Kulko for example: the court could have entered a custody order. When it couldnt do though was issue a child support order that ordered the father to pay because they had no personal jurisdiction over the father. This concludes our article on personal jurisdiction thank you for reading.
If you have any divorce or family law related question do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Make sure to sign up for my free newsletter, when you do youll receive a My Free Divorce Report that youll absolutely need if youre planning a divorce or find yourself in the middle of one! And you will receive all the articles in this series for free. Just click on the links below! - 15437
In this article we will delve into the complexities of personal jurisdiction. Similar to subject matter jurisdiction, which we discussed last time, there is a concept of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers not to the courts power over a specific subject matter rather its the courts power over a specific person. In order for court to order someone to pay money it must have personal jurisdiction over the person. In California this is a constitutional question. California has a long arm statute (Code of Civil Procedure 410.10) that is consistent with the constitutional reach of the federal due process. So in actuality the California personal jurisdiction question is the same as federal constitutional law.
The Minimum contacts rule is the most important part of California personal jurisdiction. Minimum contacts is defined by a United States Supreme Court case called International Shoe. The Supreme Court held that there are specific to fundamental principles of fair play and substantial justice that warrant a specific state exercising jurisdiction against a person or over a person. What does this mean? Well there are some specific cases on point that will explain when exercising personal jurisdiction over a party to a family matter is appropriate and when it isnt.
Kulko vs. Superior Court is a seminal Supreme Court case in this area of law. The facts: Mother and father get a divorce in New York, mother moves to California and father has custody of the children. After a few years, at the childrens request, father puts the children on an airplane and sends them to California to live with their mother. Mother thereafter serves father with an OSC (order to show cause) for child support, and claims that the mere act of putting the children on the airplane to come to California triggered the minimum contacts rule such as would allow the California court to exercise jurisdiction.
Here the US Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals in this case holding that there were no minimum contacts, no purposeful acts, no financial benefit and no business conducted or tort committed in California.
The Supreme Court held that it was wrong to exercise personal jurisdiction in this matter because the lower court was applying rules that typically apply to tort law and civil litigation to a family law case. The Supreme Court held that the rules should be different for family law. This is why Kulko is so important because Supreme Court said that we cannot use the tort analysis on a family law case. The reason the Supreme Court ruled this way and the policy behind the ruling is: that we want parents to share their kids in other states with the other out-of-state parent. The Supreme Court didnt think it was right to subject one parent to potential civil liability just because they were sharing custody.
The Jamshid-Negad case: similar to Kulko but a tort case, not a family law case (it was a car accident), and as such, the court was allowed personal jurisdiction.
The Modlin case: A doctor conducting some business in California while visiting his child. The Doctor attended three medical conferences in California. His wife used this as a basis for personal jurisdiction. The court ruled that personal jurisdiction was improper because the doctor was primarily in California to visit his children. The court ruled this way because of the same policy in Kulko, the court wanted to encourage visitation not punish the parent. The court examined the reason for the visit and determined that it was for mixed purpose, business and child visitation, but because the primary reason was child visitation, no personal jurisdiction. However, had the primary purpose been business the Court wouldve properly exercised personal jurisdiction.
The Muckle case. The facts: wife and husband used to be California residents. However, Husband moved to Georgia and three years later wife files for divorce in California. A husband files a motion to quash because hes a Georgia resident now. California trial court ruled that the husband had an economic connection with California; however, the Court of Appeals reversed.
Minimum contacts are determined at the time of the preceding. Its all about timing. This is a timing case. So the Court of Appeals held that while Mr. Muckle couldnt stop the divorce because California had subject matter jurisdiction, he could stop the payment of money because California did not have personal jurisdiction over him.
The Burnham Case: Gotcha Jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction will be valid if the party is physically present in the state when he is served. Courts have ruled this is not a minimum contacts decision; rather its an independent jurisdictional rule and minimum contacts do not apply. So regardless of Kulko, if youre served in California you are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the courts in California.
The bottom line here is that the above cases are all about personal jurisdiction not subject matter jurisdiction. Lets take Kulko for example: the court could have entered a custody order. When it couldnt do though was issue a child support order that ordered the father to pay because they had no personal jurisdiction over the father. This concludes our article on personal jurisdiction thank you for reading.
If you have any divorce or family law related question do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Make sure to sign up for my free newsletter, when you do youll receive a My Free Divorce Report that youll absolutely need if youre planning a divorce or find yourself in the middle of one! And you will receive all the articles in this series for free. Just click on the links below! - 15437
About the Author:
To Find Out How To Protect Yourself & Your Finances & How To Find a Qualified, Aggressive Orange County California Divorce Attorney Visit Our Site Now! Do You Have Questions About Divorce In California? We Can Help! Visit Now! Click Here!
