Miller v. Kite
| Decision Date | 17 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 8328DC497,8328DC497 |
| Citation | 69 N.C.App. 679,318 S.E.2d 102 |
| Parties | Barbara (Kite) MILLER v. Dennis Sherman KITE. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Riddle, Shackelford & Hyler by George B. Hyler, Jr., Asheville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Pitts, Hugenschmidt, Krause & Davis by Sara H. Davis, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant's contention that he has not been properly served with process requires no discussion. The record shows that he was properly served three times. Thus, we proceed to the main question presented by the defendant's appeal--whether the District Court of Buncombe County has in personam jurisdiction over him. The first step in the two step process required in matters of this kind, Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 231 S.E.2d 629 (1977), is to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this instance is authorized by any North Carolina statute. Our Long Arm Statute is quite comprehensive and has been construed by this Court and our Supreme Court on numerous occasions to authorize our courts to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents on the widest basis consistent within the limits of due process of law. The portions thereof pertinent to this case are as follows:
§ 1-75.4 Personal jurisdiction, grounds for generally.
A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person served in an action pursuant to Rule 4(j) or Rule 4(j1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure under any of the following circumstances:
....
(2) Special Jurisdiction Statutes.--In any action which may be brought under statutes of this State that specifically confer grounds for personal jurisdiction.
G.S. 50-13.5(c) provides:
Jurisdiction in Actions or Proceedings for Child Support and Child Custody.--
(1) The jurisdiction of the courts of this State to enter orders providing for the support of a minor child shall be as in actions or proceedings for the payment of money or the transfer of property.
Quite plainly, these two statutes read together provide the statutory basis for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant for the support of his minor child, which he is legally required to do under G.S. 50-13.4(b).
The second determination required is whether, under the circumstances recorded, the exercise of the statutory jurisdiction violates constitutional due process of law. As defendant correctly contends, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a non-resident must have certain "minimum contacts" with the forum state before in personam jurisdiction can be exercised over him and that the exercise of such jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice implicit in constitutional due process. International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Defendant's contacts with this state are as follows: For nine years his daughter, who he is obliged to support, has lived here; during that time defendant sent payments for her support here every month and visited her here on numerous occasions; and his daughter has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. King
...provisions thereof, particularly where there has been no breach thereof. Petitioner did not cite the unusual case of Miller v. Kite, N.C.Ct.App., 318 S.E.2d 102 (1984), in which the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that where the child lived in North Carolina, the courts of that State h......
- Poole v. Local 305 Nat. Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchman, Messengers and Group Leaders Div. of Laborers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO
-
Miller v. Kite
...N.C. 84 Barbara (Kite) MILLER v. Dennis Sherman KITE. No. 479PA84. Supreme Court of North Carolina. Oct. 2, 1984. Prior report: 69 N.C.App. 679, 318 S.E.2d 102. Sara H. Davis, Asherville, for George B. Hyler, Asheville, for plaintiff. Defendant's appeal based on substantial constitutional q......