Section 27.13 Long-Arm Jurisdiction

• Library: Family Law Deskbook and 2014 Supp

B. (§27.13) Long-Arm Jurisdiction

Rule 54.06(b) provides for long-arm jurisdiction in dissolution of marriage actions initiated in Missouri:

(b) Service sufficient to authorize a general judgment in personam may be obtained on any person, any person’s personal representative, or other legal representative, whether or not a citizen or resident of the state, who has lived in lawful marriage within this state, as to all civil actions for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation and all obligations arising for maintenance of a spouse, support of any child of the marriage, attorney fees, suit money or disposition of marital property, if the other party to the lawful marriage lives in this state or if a third party has provided support to the spouse or to the children of the marriage and is a resident of this state.

In Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for the City & County of San Francisco, 436 U.S. 84 (1978), the United States Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the California courts under the California long-arm statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (Westlaw through Ch. 22 of 2012 Reg. Sess.), to modify a child support order entered in accordance with a Haitian divorce decree. The parties were married in California during one of the appellant husband’s brief visits while he was in the military. The Haitian divorce decree incorporated a New York separation agreement entered into when the parties were domiciled in New York. Following the divorce, the appellant husband sent the parties’ daughter to live with her mother in California. The California Supreme Court upheld the California court’s exercise of jurisdiction, concluding that, in sending the daughter to reside with her mother in California, the appellant husband purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the laws of California.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that the appellant husband had insufficient contacts with California to provide a constitutional basis for its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977). To comply with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, a judgment imposing a personal duty of liability must be entered by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (1945); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). The existence of valid personal...