Robinson v. Hinckley, COA94-934

• Decision Date: 05 July 1995
• Docket Number: No. COA94-934,COA94-934
• Citation: 458 S.E.2d 715,119 N.C.App. 434
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Leslie L. ROBINSON, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. June C. HINCKLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 715

458 S.E.2d 715

119 N.C.App. 434

Leslie L. ROBINSON, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. June C. HINCKLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. COA94-934.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 1995.

Helms, Cannon, Hamel & Henderson P.A. by Christian R. Troy, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hicks, Brown and Mann, P.A. by Fred A. Hicks and Terri L. Young, Charlotte, for defendant-appellee.

WYNN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Leslie L. Robinson and defendant, June C. Hinckley married on 30 June 1955 and separated on 7 January 1986. On 18 December 1986, plaintiff filed an action for absolute divorce in Louisiana. Subsequently, plaintiff moved to North Carolina and filed another action for divorce in Mecklenburg County, apparently disregarding his previous Louisiana action. The trial court entered the Divorce Judgment on 20 July 1987.

On 28 July 1987, plaintiff signed an agreement entitled "Separation, Support and Property Settlement Agreement" ("Agreement") and mailed it to defendant in Louisiana. Defendant signed the Agreement on 27 August 1987.

Apparently, after the parties executed the Agreement, a dispute arose as to the division of a retirement account titled in plaintiff's name. On 3 December 1993, plaintiff filed a declaratory action in North Carolina seeking to resolve this issue under the Agreement. In response, defendant moved to dismiss the declaratory action for want of personal jurisdiction. Following a hearing on this matter, District Court Judge Yvonne M. Evans dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, we agree with Judge Evans' determination and therefore affirm the Order dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In deciding whether personal jurisdiction exists, a two step analysis is employed. "First, it should be ascertained whether the statutes of this State allow our courts to entertain the action the plaintiff has brought against the defendant." Miller v. Kite, 313 N.C. 474, 476, 329 S.E.2d 663, 665 (1985). If so, then the court must determine whether applying the statute would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 476-477, 329 S.E.2d at 665. Due process requires that a nonresident defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state before a suit may be maintained in that forum state. Int'l. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154., 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

Even assuming arguendo that the necessary statutory prerequisites were satisfied in the subject case, we find that the record fails to show that defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina to support a suit being maintained against her in this State.

The law of this State is very clear that the mere execution of a contract does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction. In Phoenix Am. Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 532, 265 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1980), this Court stated:

[I]n cases of contract disputes, "the touchstone in ascertaining the strength of the connection between the cause of action and the defendant's contacts is whether the cause arises out of attempts by the defendant to benefit from the laws of the forum state by entering the market of the forum state."

(quoting Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. v. Mohasco Corp.,...