Bradley v. Bradley
| Decision Date | 17 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. COA16-1303,COA16-1303 |
| Citation | 256 N.C.App. 1,806 S.E.2d 58 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jessica Elaine Vann BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. Joshua Lennon BRADLEY, Defendant. |
Rice Law, PLLC, by Mark Spencer Williams, Christine M. Sprow, Wilmington, and Ashton Overholt, and The Law Firm of Mark Hayes, Greensboro, by Mark L. Hayes, for plaintiff-appellee.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Raleigh, by Jonathan E. Hall, Matthew H. Mall, and Michael J. Crook, for defendant-appellant.
During the four-year marriage of Joshua and Jessica Bradley, they lived—at various times—in England, Australia, New Jersey, and New York. However, they were married in North Carolina, and over the course of their marriage Joshua engaged in various acts to maintain his ties with this state. The sole issue in this appeal arising from Jessica's divorce action is whether the trial court correctly concluded that North Carolina possessed personal jurisdiction over Joshua. Because we conclude that Joshua had sufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina such that the exercise of jurisdiction over him by a North Carolina court is consistent with principles of due process, we affirm the trial court's order denying Joshua's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Joshua was born and raised in Virginia. Jessica is from North Carolina. The parties first met in Virginia while Jessica was in graduate school and Joshua was in law school. After Jessica completed her schooling in Virginia, she returned to North Carolina to complete her Master's Degree. She was living in North Carolina with her parents (the "Vanns") in Bladen County at the time that she and Joshua married.
Upon Joshua's graduation from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2009, he was admitted to the New York bar and began working at a law firm in New York City. As part of his employment with the firm, he was sent to work on temporary assignments in various locations. At the time the couple married, Joshua was on a temporary assignment to Sydney, Australia.
Jessica and Joshua had two wedding ceremonies—both of which took place in Bladen County. The first was a "legal marriage ceremony" in March 2011, and the second was a "formal" ceremony in August 2011. For each ceremony, Joshua flew to North Carolina for a few days and then returned to Australia.
The parties lived in Australia as a married couple from September 2011 until July 2013. In July 2013, Joshua was recalled by his employer to the firm's New York office. The parties resided in New York for two months and then moved to New Jersey in October 2013 where they leased real property and lived for nine months.
In May or June 2014, Joshua received another temporary assignment to work in London, England. The parties moved to London and lived there from July 2014 until June 2015. Because they were moving abroad, they decided to store various items of their personal property in a storage unit. Joshua contacted Jessica's father, Jesse Vann ("Mr. Vann"), and asked him to rent a storage unit in Fayetteville, North Carolina for this purpose. Mr. Vann agreed to do so and rented the storage unit in his own name. Joshua proceeded to ship various property—including marital property of the parties—to Mr. Vann, which he placed in the storage unit in Fayetteville. Joshua continuously paid the fees associated with the storage unit for the next 23 months.
While the parties were living abroad, Joshua arranged for a portion of their mail to be sent to the Vanns’ home in North Carolina, and they also received additional mail at his parents’ home in Virginia and at his employer's address in New York. Among the items of mail he received at the Vanns’ home were certain "boxed shipments."
In May 2014, the parties learned that Jessica was pregnant. During the pregnancy, the parties had two baby showers in the United States—one in Bladen County, North Carolina and one in Virginia. The parties’ child, Eden, was born on 1 February 2015 in London, England.
In May 2015, the parties agreed that they would live apart for a period of time. The family flew to Virginia where Jessica and Eden began living with Joshua's parents.
In June 2015, Joshua and Jessica officially decided to separate. Jessica and Eden moved from Joshua's parents’ home in Virginia to live with her parents in Bladen County. At the time this action commenced, Jessica was living in North Carolina with Eden, and Joshua was still living in London.
On 1 March 2016, Jessica filed a complaint in New Hanover County District Court seeking child custody, child support, post-separation support, alimony, equitable distribution, and attorneys’ fees. On 1 April 2016, Joshua filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. On 14 April 2016, he filed an affidavit in support of his motion. Four days later, he filed an amended motion to dismiss.
A hearing was held on Joshua's amended motion to dismiss on 15 June 2016 before the Honorable Jeffrey Evan Noecker. Prior to the hearing, Joshua filed a second affidavit. On 13 July 2016, the trial court entered an order denying Joshua's amended motion to dismiss and concluding that it possessed personal jurisdiction over Joshua. Joshua filed a timely notice of appeal.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether we have appellate jurisdiction to hear Joshua's appeal. See Duval v. OM Hospitality, LLC , 186 N.C. App. 390, 392, 651 S.E.2d 261, 263 (2007) . "A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court." Id. (citation omitted). Conversely, an order or judgment is interlocutory if it does not settle all of the issues in the case but rather "directs some further proceeding preliminary to the final decree." Heavner v. Heavner , 73 N.C. App. 331, 332, 326 S.E.2d 78, 80, disc. review denied , 313 N.C. 601, 330 S.E.2d 610 (1985).
"Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments." Paradigm Consultants, Ltd. v. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. , 228 N.C. App. 314, 317, 745 S.E.2d 69, 72 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The prohibition against interlocutory appeals "prevents fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts." Russell v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 136 N.C. App. 798, 800, 526 S.E.2d 494, 496 (2000) (citation and brackets omitted).
However, "[a]ny interested party shall have the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or property of the defendant...." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(b) (2015). Thus, Joshua has a right of immediate appeal. See Meherrin Indian Tribe v. Lewis , 197 N.C. App. 380, 384, 677 S.E.2d 203, 207 (2009) (), disc. review denied , 363 N.C. 806, 690 S.E.2d 705 (2010).
Joshua contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) as to Jessica's claims for child support, post-separation support, alimony, and equitable distribution.1 "The standard of review of an order determining personal jurisdiction is whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence in the record." Bell v. Mozley , 216 N.C. App. 540, 543, 716 S.E.2d 868, 871 (2011) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted), disc. review denied , ––– N.C. ––––, 724 S.E.2d 529 (2012). We have held that "[t]he trial court's determination regarding the existence of grounds for personal jurisdiction is a question of fact." Eluhu v. Rosenhaus , 159 N.C. App. 355, 357, 583 S.E.2d 707, 710 (2003), aff'd per curiam , 358 N.C. 372, 595 S.E.2d 146 (2004).
The determination of whether the trial court can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is a two-part inquiry. First, the North Carolina long-arm statute must permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Second, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Filmar Racing, Inc. v. Stewart , 141 N.C. App. 668, 671, 541 S.E.2d 733, 736 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).2
"In order to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process, the trial court must evaluate whether the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Eluhu , 159 N.C. App. at 358, 583 S.E.2d at 710 (2003) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). "The relationship between the defendant and the forum state must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into a North Carolina court." Bell , 216 N.C. App. at 544, 716 S.E.2d at 872 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Factors for determining existence of minimum contacts include (1) quantity of the contacts, (2) nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) convenience to the parties.
Bruggeman v. Meditrust Acquisition Co. , 138 N.C. App. 612, 617, 532 S.E.2d 215, 219 (citation and quotation marks omitted), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied , 353 N.C. 261, 546 S.E.2d 90 (2000).
"The Court must also weigh and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ponder v. Been
..., 159 N.C. App. 355, 357, 583 S.E.2d 707, 710, aff'd per curiam , 358 N.C. 372, 595 S.E.2d 146 (2004)." Bradley v. Bradley , 256 N.C. App. 1, 5, 806 S.E.2d 58, 62 (2017) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, "[t]he determination of whether jurisdiction is statutorily and const......
-
County of Durham by and through Durham DSS v. Hodges
...cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court.’ " Bradley v. Bradley , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 806 S.E.2d 58, 61 (2017) (quoting Duval v. OM Hospitality, LLC , 186 N.C. App. 390, 392, 651 S.E.2d 261, 263 (2007) ). Since the 14 Jun......