 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Oakley6/14/2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, John Bauercamper, Judge.
The petitioner appeals a district court ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over respondent regarding issues of property division, allocation of debts, and other economic issues arising from the parties' marriage except for custody and child support. Petitioner maintains the district court had personal jurisdiction to decide all economic issues. REVERSED AND MODIFIED.
Petitioner-Appellant, Sondra Peterson Oakley, appeals from that portion of a decree dissolving her marriage to Respondent-Appellee Raymond Oakley where the district court found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to divide the property of the parties. She contends the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction to make the division and contends the district court should be reversed. Reserved and modified.
On May 13, 1998, Sondra filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Raymond. The petition was filed in the district court for Winneshiek County, Iowa. Sondra alleged in the petition that Raymond was a resident of New York state and would be served with an original notice of suit there. At the same time, Sondra filed a motion in the dissolution action asking the Iowa court to complete the sale of property the parties owned in New Jersey. Raymond was served by a process server in New York on May 27, 1998. On June 2, 1998, Richard D. Zahasky, as attorney for Raymond, filed an appearance in the dissolution action and also filed a motion to continue a hearing on the motion to compel. A ruling was entered on the motion to compel. Then on June 16, 1998, Raymond filed an answer wherein he denied that Sondra was a resident of the state of Iowa and affirmatively alleged that her residence in the state was not in good faith and was for the sole purpose of proceeding with dissolution of marriage. He requested that the petition for dissolution be dismissed. On March 23, 1999, Richard D. Zahasky asked the court for permission to withdraw from the representation of Raymond. The district court subsequently granted Zahasky permission to withdraw.
The case came on for trial. Sondra appeared with her attorney. Raymond did not appear but made a telephone call to the court requesting a continuance, which was denied. After hearing the evidence the district court determined it did not have personal jurisdiction over Raymond. The court determined because it lacked personal jurisdiction it could not decide issues of property division, allocation of debt and other economic issues. The district court went on to dissolve the marriage. The court found Iowa to be the home state of the minor child of the parties and placed his sole custody and primary care with Sondra and set child support obligations ordering Raymond to pay $443.82 in child support plus certain medical expenses.
Sondra filed a Rule 179(b) motion challenging the court's refusal to divide the property and the debts. The motion was denied and this appeal follows.
In reviewing a district court's decision to exercise personal jurisdiction, we accept as true the allegations of the petition and the contents of uncontroversial affidavits. In re Marriage of Wallick, 524 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1994); State ex rel. Miller v. Internal Energy, 324 N.W.2d 707, 709 (Iowa 1982). We are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law or by its application of legal principles. Larsen v. Scholl, 296 N.W.2d 785, 787 (Iowa 1980).
Sondra contends the district court incorrectly found that Raymond in his answer challenged the jurisdiction of the Iowa court over his person. Raymond did allege in his answers that Sondra had not been
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|