Beardsley v. Beardsley
| Decision Date | 26 December 1957 |
| Citation | 137 A.2d 752,144 Conn. 725 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gloria BEARDSLEY v. Raymond BEARDSLEY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Lorin W. Willis, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).
George A. Saden, with whom were Abe J. Schwarz and Arlen D. Nickowitz, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.
On June 25, 1951, the plaintiff obtained a decree of divorce from the defendant in the Superior Court in Fairfield County. The decree included orders for the payment of alimony and of support for a minor child, each in the amount of $20 a week. The defendant failed to make all of the payments, and this action is brought to secure a judgment for the accrued arrearage under both orders, in accordance with the rule of cases such as German v. German, 122 Conn. 155, 158, 188 A. 429.
The defendant claims that the awards of alimony and support are without validity since service in the divorce action was made on him in West Virginia only by registered mail. Each order in effect constituted an in personam judgment and, since no property in Connecticut was attached, would require, for its validity, that the court have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Coyne v. Plume, 90 Conn. 293, 297, 97 A. 337; 17 Am.Jur. 679, § 592; 17A Am.Jur. 42 § 852, 157 § 973. Such jurisdiction could not be acquired by the service used here. Receivers Middlesex Banking Co. v. Realty Investment Co., 104 Conn. 206, 213, 132 A. 390. Ordinarily, a court obtains jurisdiction of the person of a nonresident by service made upon him in in the state of the forum. Samson v. Bergin, 138 Conn. 306, 309, 84 A.2d 273. If the court acquired in personam jurisdiction over this defendant, it was because of something in addition to the mere service of process by registered mail.
After receipt of the copy of the process, the defendant wrote the clerk of the court and asked that he be kept informed of the progress of the action. The clerk answered the defendant 1 and inclosed duplicate appearance forms, properly filled out except for the defendant's signature. These the defendant signed and returned to the clerk. They were filed under date of February 28, 1951. The defendant mailed a letter, dated February 24, 1951, to the clerk's office. An inside envelope bore the following instructions: 'To Be Delivered to the Judge of the Superior Court or Constituted Authority Who Would Preside at Said Hearing.' The letter was opened and read on April 27, 1951, by Judge Comley, who later presided at the hearing on the divorce action. The defendant was not represented by legal counsel at the time the appearance was filed or the letter sent, and otherwise submitted no answer of defense in the divorce proceeding. It was heard by Judge Comley as an uncontested action on June 21, 1951, and on that day judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.
It is unnecessary to quote the letter of the defendant at length. It reviewed his marital difficulties; stated that he would not contest the action if his wife insisted on pursuing it; questioned, but did not unequivocally deny, the jurisdictional allegation of the complaint as to the plaintiff's residence in Connecticut; and said that he was heavily in debt and that his wife had agreed that she would be satisfied with $10 a week but that he had in fact been sending her $15 a week, which he felt 'at present was adequate' and the most that he could afford. 'In addition,' he continued, 'I have been paying for some medical bills of hers, which she has sent to me.' In the concluding paragraph of the letter, he stated: '* * * I have written directly to you, since it is my only means of acquainting you with my thoughts and feelings in the matter.'
The defendant is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is now employed as a research engineer with the Goodyear Aircraft Corporation in Akron, Ohio, where he lives. He received from the clerk, in due course, all papers filed in the divorce proceeding. In March, 1953, he remarried.
The defendant claims that his general appearance was filed solely because he was misled by the clerk into thinking he had to file it if he was to be kept informed of the progress of the case, and that in sending in the appearance forms, as well as in writing the letter, he had no intention of submitting himself to the in personam jurisdiction of the court. Of course, the clerk admittedly was in nowise responsible for the defendant's sending of the letter.
A general appearance is at the very least prima facie evidence of the truth of its recitals, which necessarily embrace an intention to submit generally to the in personam jurisdiction of the court. Whether in all instances an executed general appearance, duly filed, is, in and of itself, conclusive evidence of a submission to the in personam jurisdiction of the court we need not now determine. See Cockran v. Leister, 2 Root 348; 3 Am.Jur. 787 § 10, 789 § 11, 804 § 34. Certainly the fact that a layman did not fully understand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baby Girl B., In re
...to contest the case on its merits. See, e.g., Brown v. Allen, 166 Conn. 174, 176-77, 348 A.2d 666 (1974); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 144 Conn. 725, 728-29, 137 A.2d 752 (1957). In order to avoid submitting to the court's jurisdiction, a party must have appeared specially for the sole purpose o......
-
Baker v. Baker
...Moreover, the defendant clearly waived any defects of jurisdiction at that point by filing a general appearance. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 144 Conn. 725, 729, 137 A.2d 752; Amato v. Campano, 141 Conn. 247, 250, 105 A.2d 185; Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, 169 A. 58. The defendant's secon......
-
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Huntington
...represented by counsel. They thereby submitted themselves to the in personam jurisdiction of the New York court. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 144 Conn. 725, 730, 137 A.2d 752; Samson v. Bergin, 138 Conn. 306, 310, 84 A.2d 273. Since the New York court had jurisdiction of the trust res and, indee......
-
Carter v. Carter
...demurrer to the plea in abatement. An order directing the payment of alimony or support is a judgment in personam. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 144 Conn. 725, 726, 137 A.2d 752. Without personal service upon the defendant, the court has no jurisdiction to enter a judgment in personam unless the ......