Bebeau v. Berger
| Decision Date | 19 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 529 P.2d 234,22 Ariz.App. 522 |
| Parties | Gerard BEBEAU, Jr., Appellant, v. Colleen M. BERGER, Appellee. 1625. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
A superior court order in reciprocal proceedings requiring appellant to pay the sum of $25 per month as support for a minor child in Wisconsin is the subject of this appeal.
Appellee, mother of a child born out of wedlock, instituted reciprocal proceedings in Wisconsin alleging that appellant owed a duty to support the minor child. She based this duty of support on a Door County, Wisconsin, judgment entered November 28, 1972, which recreed that appellant was the father of a child born to the appellee out of wedlock in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, on June 17, 1971. The judgment further decreed that appellant was obligated for the lying-in expenses and owed an obligation and duty of support for the maintenance of the said minor child. The judgment recited that appellant had been 'properly served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint pursuant to the laws of the State of Wisconsin', that the time to answer and otherwise plead had passed and that appellant had neither answered nor made an appearance. Further, that appellee had testified in her own behalf.
The Wisconsin court expressly found that on or about October 1, 1970, in the County of Door, Wisconsin, appellant had had sexual intercourse with appellee and that appellee did not have sexual intercourse with any other man at or about this period of time; that as a result of said act of intercourse appellee did conceive a child out of wedlock on June 17, 1971 in Door County, Wisconsin, that appellee alleged that appellant was the father of this child and that appellee's allegations were proven and true.
The basis for appellant's challenge to the subject support order is that the superior court should not have given full faith and credit to the Wisconsin judgment for the reason that the judgment was void. He does not dispute the fact that he was personally served with the paternity complaint and summons in Arizona and that he did not appear or otherwise defend the paternity suit.
A judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state duly authenticated is Prima facie evidence of the court's jurisdiction to render it and of the right which it purports to adjudicate. Coffee v. National Equipment Rental, Ltd., 9 Ariz.App. 249, 451 P.2d 329 (1969). However, as pointed out in Coffee, supra, a foreign judgment may be attacked on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter, lack of due process, incompetency of a foreign ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schilz v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County
...U.S. 803, 104 S.Ct. 49, 78 L.Ed.2d 69 (1983); In re Hindi, 71 Ariz. 17, 222 P.2d 991 (1950) (pre-long arm statute); Bebeau v. Berger, 22 Ariz.App. 522, 529 P.2d 234 (1975); see also, May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953) (in personam jurisdiction required to cut ......
-
Larsen v. Scholl
...issue has arisen in other jurisdictions under broad statutes or rules similar to Iowa's rule 56.2. See, e. g., Bebeau v. Berger, 22 Ariz.App. 522, 523, 529 P.2d 234, 235 (1974) (giving full faith and credit to Wisconsin adjudication); Backora v. Balkin, 14 Ariz.App. 569, 571, 485 P.2d 292, ......
-
Oyakawa v. Gillett, 1
...due process rights were violated. E.g., Phares v. Nutter, 125 Ariz. 291, 293, 609 P.2d 561, 563 (1980); Bebeau v. Berger, 22 Ariz.App. 522, 523, 529 P.2d 234, 235 (1975). The Gilletts contend that the judgment is effective only against Dr. Gillett and cannot be enforced against the communit......
-
Nilsa B. B. v. Clyde Blackwell H.
...statutes involved in those cases, for the most part, were either broader in their terms than CPLR 302 (subd. par. 2) (Bebeau v. Berger, 22 Ariz.App. 522, 529 P.2d 234; Backora v. Balkin, 14 Ariz.App. 569, 485 P.2d 292), construed as authorizing jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by d......