Carlin v. Carlin
Decision Date | 23 March 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 319,319 |
Citation | 62 Or.App. 350,660 P.2d 204 |
Parties | Dolores C. CARLIN, Plaintiff, v. Philip A. CARLIN, Jr., Defendant. Dolores C. CARLIN, aka Dolores C. Wellman, and Caryn C. Carlin, Appellants, v. Philip A. CARLIN, Jr., Respondent. 638; CA A24712. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
David N. Hobson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.
Marla J. McGeorge, Purcella & Laury, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and NEWMAN, * JJ.
Mother and the parties' child, Caryn, appeal from a trial court order allowing father's motion to dismiss their motion to modify the parties' dissolution decree to increase child support. The issue is whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over father, a resident of Arizona. The trial court concluded that it did not. We disagree and therefore reverse and remand.
In 1966, mother filed a suit for divorce. Personal service was obtained on father in Oregon. The dissolution decree awarded custody of Caryn to mother and ordered father to pay child support until Caryn reached majority. 1 In 1981, mother and Caryn moved to modify the decree to increase child support. ORS 107.135. 2 An order to show cause was issued requiring father to appear in Oregon to show cause why support should not be increased.
Father was served by substituted service in Arizona. The attorney for Mother and Caryn also mailed father a certified letter, advising him of the substituted service and enclosing a copy of the motion, order and affidavits. Father concedes that he received actual notice of the modification proceeding and that service and notice are not in issue here. Father also concedes that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction. He contests only the court's personal jurisdiction over him.
While we have not addressed this specific issue before, in Eusterman and Eusterman, 41 Or.App. 717, 731-32, 598 P.2d 1274 (1979), we said:
The dissolution court has continuing personal jurisdiction over father so long as he owes a duty of support to Caryn. This conclusion is supported by the great weight of authority. 3 Father has cited no authority to the contrary, nor has our research revealed any. 4 Therefore, it was error for the trial court to allow father's motion.
Father contends that because he had been a resident of Arizona for several years before this modification proceeding was commenced, the circuit court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over him. He relies on ORCP 4 K(2), which provides:
Father's reliance on ORCP 4 K(2) is misplaced. Once having obtained personal jurisdiction over father in 1966, the circuit court never lost that jurisdiction for child support purposes under ORS 107.135.
Reversed and remanded. Costs to appellants.
* Newman, J., vice Thornton, J., retired.
1 Caryn's affidavit indicates that she is entitled to support under the provisions of ORS 107.108 as an unmarried, fulltime student under 21.
2 ORS 107.135(1)(a) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chapman v. Chapman
...over Jerry it previously acquired. 1 Accord Rapaport v. Rapaport (1987), 158 Mich.App. 741, 405 N.W.2d 165; Carlin v. Carlin (1983), 62 Or.App. 350, 660 P.2d 204; State ex. rel. Ravitz v. Circuit Court of Monongalia County (1980), 166 W.Va. 194, 273 S.E.2d 370; Glading v. Furman (1978), 282......
-
Bailey v. Bailey
...subsequent motion to modify, and the court explained the continuing jurisdiction of courts in support matters); Carlin v. Carlin, 62 Or.App. 350, 660 P.2d 204, 205 n. 3 (1983), (held that divorce court retained continuing personal jurisdiction over nonresident father so long as parent owed ......
-
Lewkowitz v. Lewkowitz
...entered in 1971, but the modification proceeding against the non-resident was not instituted until 1976. And in Carlin v. Carlin, Or.Ct.App., 62 Or.App. 350, 660 P.2d 204 (1983), an order of support was issued by the Oregon Court incident to divorce proceedings filed in 1966. In 1981, the m......