Rash v. Rash, 96-1077-CIV-T-17.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1077-CIV-T-17.,96-1077-CIV-T-17. |
| Citation | 960 F.Supp. 280 |
| Parties | Joseph J. RASH, Plaintiff, v. Joann H. RASH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Joe Manuel Gonzalez, Joe Manuel Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, FL for plaintiff.
C. Michael Magruder, Law Office of C. Michael Magruder, Kissimmee, FL for defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
This cause is before the Court on Defendant Joann H. Rash's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Dkt.5) on the following grounds: 1) failure to state a cause of action; 2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3) lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, Plaintiff Joseph J. Rash has filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.15). Upon consideration, this Court concludes that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking in this action and grants the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff, Joseph J. Rash, and Defendant, Joann H. Rash, were married on February 10, 1968 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On February 25, 1994, Joseph Rash began divorce proceedings against Defendant in Hernando County, Florida. Defendant Joann Rash was served with the Plaintiff's petition for dissolution of marriage on March 14, 1994 in New Jersey.
On March 21, 1994, Joann Rash filed suit for dissolution of marriage in Cape May County, New Jersey. On March 31, 1994, the New Jersey court entered a Temporary Injunction restraining Plaintiff Joseph Rash from proceeding in personam against Joann Rash in the Florida action and from proceeding to obtain relief on any issues regarding equitable distribution of personal and real property, attorney's fees, costs, suit money, and the parties' marital debt. Defendant Joann Rash alleges that both parties were represented by counsel at the New Jersey hearing on the Temporary Injunction.
Defendant further alleges that counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Rash filed a Motion to Proceed in the Florida action on July 8, 1994, which the Florida court granted. On December 14, 1994, the New Jersey court revisited the issue of in personam jurisdiction and again found that the State of Florida inappropriately asserted in personam jurisdiction over Joann Rash. In its order, the New Jersey court stated that the State of New Jersey had sole in personam jurisdiction over both parties and that it was the proper forum for resolving issues relating to distribution of property and support. Nevertheless, on October 21, 1994, the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Hernando County, Florida, entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage in the Florida proceeding. In the New Jersey action, a Final Judgment of Divorce was entered in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Cape May County on June 19, 1995.
Pursuant to the Florida judgment, the court awarded Joseph Rash the "sole and exclusive ownership of his individual Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System pension," excluding Joann Rash from any benefit thereof. The Florida court also determined that Joann Rash would not be entitled to any form of support from Joseph Rash, whether it be temporary, permanent periodic, and/or lump sum alimony. Furthermore, the former marital home in Del Haven, New Jersey was to be divided equally between the parties. The Florida judgment also directed that each party retain "sole and exclusive possession and ownership of any and all accounts, personal property and real property in their individual names," including any insurance policies owned by the parties.
On the other hand, the New Jersey court awarded Joann Rash fifty percent (50%) of Joseph Rash's retirement pension in addition to one-half of any increases in the future. The former wife was also granted fifty percent (50%) of Joseph Rash's Social Security monthly benefit, as well as one-half of any increases in the future. Additionally, the New Jersey court awarded Joann Rash permanent alimony at $25.00 per week. Pursuant to its decree, the New Jersey court also directed that the funds from the sale of the marital home be divided equally, with Joseph Rash's portion subject to certain credits and debits. Joseph Rash received the property located in Spring Hill, Florida, subject to a credit of $500 in favor of Joann Rash. The New Jersey court also ordered that any insurance policies owned by the parties be equally divided.
On March 18, 1996, the New Jersey court entered a Domestic Relations Order. The order requires that the Administrator of the Plaintiff's pension pay fifty percent (50%) of Joseph Rash's monthly benefit to Joann Rash. Subsequently, the Plaintiff was notified by letter that one-half of his monthly benefit would be deducted and directed to the Defendant.
Plaintiff Joseph Rash argues that the Florida divorce decree, granted prior to the New Jersey judgment of divorce, is entitled to full faith and credit in New Jersey. Plaintiff contends that once the Defendant was properly served with the complaint in the Florida action, Florida's long-arm statute provided personal and subject matter jurisdiction in the Florida court. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the New Jersey court was bound by the Florida judgment.
Defendant Joann Rash contends that the Florida judgment was unenforceable because the court lacked in personam jurisdiction over her in the Florida action. Defendant argues that the temporary injunction granted by the New Jersey court, restraining Plaintiff Joseph Rash from proceeding with the Florida suit (albeit ineffectively), invalidates the Florida judgment.
Article IV, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceeding of every other State. And the Congress may be general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be provided, and the effect thereof.
Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Harrison
... ... (Ohio divorce decree is a final judgment entitled to full ... faith and credit); Rash v. Rash , 960 F.Supp. 280, ... 282 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (same); see generally Moucka v ... ...