Beasley v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 27 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. S90A0809,S90A0809
• Parties: Jane Salter BEASLEY v. Benjamin B. BEASLEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 222

396 S.E.2d 222

260 Ga. 419

Jane Salter BEASLEY v. Benjamin B. BEASLEY.

No. S90A0809.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 27, 1990.

James D. McGuire, David H. Bedingfield, McGuire & Harper, Atlanta, for Jane Salter Beasley.

Gordon Hiles, Hiles & Rowen, Atlanta, for Benjamin B. Beasley.

CLARKE, Chief Justice.

Jane Salter Beasley brought this action for separate maintenance and division of marital assets against Benjamin Beasley, who currently resides in Saudi Arabia. He was served with process pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-91 while visiting in Florida. Mr. Beasley filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that the courts in Georgia could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over him because he lacks the requisite "minimum contacts" with the state. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. We granted this application for discretionary appeal and reverse.

Our precedents establish that a defendant who files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction has the burden of proving lack of jurisdiction. Easterling v. Easterling, 231 Ga. 90, 200 S.E.2d 267 (1973); Smith v. Smith, 223 Ga. 551, 156 S.E.2d 916 (1967). A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must be granted if there are insufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that defendant can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. To demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction, defendant may raise matters not contained in the pleadings. However, when the outcome of the motion depends on unstipulated facts, it must be accompanied by supporting affidavits or citations to evidentiary material in the record. See Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.1. See also Behar v. Aero Med International, Inc., 185 Ga.App. 845, 846, 366 S.E.2d 223 (1988). Further, to the extent that defendant's evidence controverts the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff may not rely on mere allegations, but must also submit supporting affidavits or documentary evidence. Id. at 846, 366 S.E.2d 223.

The trial court considering a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction has discretion to hear oral testimony or to decide the motion on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence alone pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-43(b). McPherson v. McPherson, 238 Ga. 271, 232 S.E.2d 552 (1977). If the motion is decided on the basis of written submissions alone, as was the motion in this case, disputes of fact found in the affidavits are resolved in favor of plaintiff. See, generally, C. Wright and A. Miller, 5 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1351 (West 1969, 1989 Supp.). Further, if a motion is decided on the basis of the written submissions, the reviewing court is in an equal position with the trial court to determine the facts and therefore examines the facts under a non-deferential standard. Cf. Carole Lyden Smith Enterprises, Inc v. Mathew 193 Ga.App. 320, 387 S.E.2d 577 (1989). In this case, defendant presented no affidavits, documents or oral testimony. We therefore accept the statements contained in the plaintiff's complaint and affidavits as true for the purpose of deciding the motion.

Defendant was an army officer stationed at Fort Gillem, Georgia when he married plaintiff in 1979. Before marrying plaintiff, he had lived in Georgia for two years and had obtained a divorce from a former wife in the Superior Court of Clayton County, Georgia. Following a marriage ceremony in South Carolina, the parties resided in Georgia until 1981, when defendant was transferred to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. In 1982 they returned to Georgia and defendant retired from the military. For a short time after defendant's retirement the parties lived with plaintiff's mother in Savannah, Georgia. Then they went to Saudi Arabia as employees of Arabian American Oil Company. Throughout their stay together in Saudi Arabia, they intended that upon their return to the United States, they would continue to reside in Georgia. They made periodic visits to the United States, including visits to plaintiff's mother's home in Savannah, Georgia. It was on one such visit that defendant first requested a divorce. The parties apparently decided not to file for divorce at that time, and returned to Saudi Arabia. Shortly thereafter, defendant withdrew his sponsorship of plaintiff so that she was forced to resign her employment and leave the country. Plaintiff returned to Georgia and resides here. Defendant claims no residence other than in Saudi Arabia, but he remains a citizen of the United States. During the marriage the parties have acquired substantial assets, including over $200,000 deposited in Swiss bank accounts. Plaintiff is now unemployed and in need of support.

Due process requires that individuals have "fair warning that a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign." Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). In evaluating whether a defendant could reasonably expect to be haled into court in a particular forum, courts examine defendant's contacts with the state, focusing on whether (1) defendant has done some act to avail himself of the law of the forum state; (2) the claim is related to those acts; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, that is, it does not violate notions of fair play and substantial justice. Straus v. Straus, 260 Ga. 327, 393 S.E.2d 248 (1990); Smith v. Smith, 254 Ga. 450, 330 S.E.2d 706 (1985). These three elements do not constitute a due process formula, but are helpful analytical tools which ensure that a defendant is not forced to litigate in a jurisdiction solely as a result of "random", "fortuitous" or "attenuated" contacts. Burger King, supra, at 475, 105 S.Ct. at 2183. The first two elements are used to determine whether defendant has established the minimum contacts necessary for the exercise of jurisdiction. If a defendant has established minimum contacts, the court may then evaluate other factors that impact on the reasonableness of asserting jurisdiction, such as the burden on defendant, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient...