In re Marriage of Ardes-Guisot

• Docket Number: 83074-1-I
• Decision Date: 18 September 2023
• Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of: ELODIE YOHANNA ARDES-GUISOT, Appellant, and STEPHANE BLAISE BONFILS, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington

1

In the Matter of the Marriage of: ELODIE YOHANNA ARDES-GUISOT, Appellant, and STEPHANE BLAISE BONFILS, Respondent.

No. 83074-1-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

September 18, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HAZELRIGG, A.C.J.

Elodie Yohanna Ardes-Guisot appeals from a dismissal of dissolution proceedings based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Because Ardes-Guisot fails to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm.

FACTS

Elodie Yohanna Ardes-Guisot and Stephane Bonfils began living together as a couple in October 2009, in Paris, France. They married on March 7, 2011, in the state of Nevada. The parties appear to agree that they maintained separate households by May 2016,^[1] and that Bonfils petitioned a French court for divorce in April 2018. However, the parties dispute whether those proceedings

2

have been resolved.^[2] On November 25, 2020, Ardes-Guisot filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in King County Superior Court.

ANALYSIS

Ardes-Guisot assigns error to the court's dismissal of her petition based on forum non conveniens.^[3] However, she also asserts the court erred in its conclusion that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the parties and the procedure by which it addressed the various questions presented.^[4] As such, we will first clarify the concepts at issue in this case before reaching the merits of the appeal.

I. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction refers to "the power of a court to hear and determine a case." In re Marriage of Buecking, 179 Wn.2d 438, 447, 316 P.3d 999 (2013). Without jurisdiction, the "'court cannot proceed at all in any cause.'" Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)); see also Pastor v. 713 SW 353rd Place, 21 Wn.App. 2d 415, 423, 506 P.3d 658 ("If a

3

tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the implication is that it does not have authority to decide the claim at all or order any type of relief."), review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1005 (2022). "'Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law'" and, when it is absent, the only remaining function of the court is to announce that fact and dismiss the case.^[5] Id. The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing its requirements "by prima facie evidence." In re Marriage of Yocum, 73 Wn.App. 699, 703, 870 P.2d 1033 (1994).

Jurisdiction is comprised of two components: jurisdiction over the person and jurisdiction over the subject matter. Buecking, 179 Wn.2d at 447. A court exercises personal jurisdiction in a number of ways, including the following bases: consent, domicil, residence, presence, appearance in an action, and/or doing business in the state. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 27 (1971). RCW 4.28.185, our state's long-arm statute, may subject a nonresident defendant to the jurisdiction of our courts if the provisions of the statute and due process requirements are both satisfied. Yocum, 73 Wn.App. at 702. This is referred to as "long-arm" jurisdiction. Oytan v. David-Oytan, 171 Wn.App. 781, 798, 288 P.3d 57 (2012). To find if these requirements are satisfied, the court focuses on the nature and extent of "the defendant's relationship to the forum

4

[s]tate.” Duell v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., __ Wn.App. 2d. __, 530 P.3d 1015, 1019 (2023) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., __ U.S. __, 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024, 209 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021)). The long-arm statute requires an analysis of the specific individual's contacts with the forum state, as well as the nature and quality of those interactions. Oytan, 171 Wn.App. at 802.^[6] As it pertains to dissolution actions specifically, the long-arm statute provides, in relevant part:

(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts in this section enumerated, thereby submits said person . . . to the jurisdiction of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:

(f) Living in a marital relationship within this state notwithstanding subsequent departure from this state, as to all proceedings authorized by chapter 26.09 RCW, so long as the petitioning party has continued to reside in this state or has continued to be a member of the armed forces in this state.

RCW 4.28.185.

Ardes-Guisot argues that the trial court erred in failing to assume personal jurisdiction over Bonfils through the long-arm statute. However, she provides no relevant authority for her argument that Washington may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state spouse simply because the other spouse resides in Washington.^[7] Further, although she is accurate that the long-arm statute is unnecessary if the nonresident party consents to jurisdiction, she does not

5

provide evidence in support of her assertion that Bonfils has so consented and the record shows otherwise as Bonfils moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, clearly indicating his lack of consent.

Regardless, the trial court dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens and only made a single passing reference to personal jurisdiction in its final order, therefore we do not consider Ardes-Guisot's challenge regarding personal jurisdiction.^[8]

II. Forum non Conveniens

Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which is distinct from the concept of personal jurisdiction, courts have the discretion to decline jurisdiction when the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum. In re Marriage of Owen, 126 Wn.App. 487, 503-04, 108 P.3d 824 (2005).^[9] Because a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens requires a fact-specific analysis of the case, we review decisions based on this doctrine for an abuse of discretion. Sandhu Farm, Inc. v. A&P Fruit Growers, Ltd.,

6

25 Wn.App. 2d 577, 588, 524 P.3d 209, 217 (2023). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds,"...