State of Minn., Marshall County v. Bybee

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CLARK
• Citation: State of Minn., Marshall County v. Bybee, 744 S.W.2d 511 (Mo. App. 1988)
• Decision Date: 26 January 1988
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF MARSHALL, and Sandra Lyczewski Mayer, Respondents, v. Gary Lawrence BYBEE, Appellant. 39386.

Page 511

744 S.W.2d 511

STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF MARSHALL, and Sandra Lyczewski Mayer, Respondents, v. Gary Lawrence BYBEE, Appellant.

No. WD 39386.

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District.

Jan. 26, 1988.

Kenneth D. Kyser, Kyser and Suter Law Office, Moberly, for appellant.

Diane Painter, Asst. Pros. Atty., Moberly, for respondents.

Before CLARK, P.J., and TURNAGE and MANFORD, JJ.

CLARK, Presiding Judge.

This action was brought by the State of Minnesota pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Acts of Minnesota and Missouri to enforce a prior Minnesota judgment against Gary Bybee for the support of a child born to one Sandra Mayer. According to the Minnesota judgment, the child was conceived and born in Minnesota and was the beneficiary of welfare assistance provided by the Department of Social Services of Otter Tail County, Minnesota. The court in Randolph County, Missouri entered its order as to arrearages in child support and for future monthly payments and Bybee appeals.

The applicable facts appear from documents in the legal file. Respondent's petition alleged that on August 25, 1982, in an action between Sandra Mayer as plaintiff and Gary Bybee as defendant, a judgment was rendered by the County Court of Otter Tail County, Minnesota declaring Bybee to be the father of a son born to Mayer in Minnesota on December 30, 1973. The judgment further awarded Otter Tail County $4,785.00 in reimbursement for public assistance paid to support the child from August 1, 1979 to August 31, 1981, and directed that Bybee pay in addition for the future support of the child the amount of $368.00 per month. In its current petition, respondent alleged that the total accumulated sum due on the judgment amounted to $17,296.00. The prayer requested enforcement of the Minnesota judgment in Missouri.

Appellant filed an answer generally denying the petition allegations and alleging that he was not the father of the child and had not been personally served with suit papers in Minnesota. The court's docket sheet shows that on September 11, 1986 respondent appeared by attorney and appellant and his attorney appeared and the case was continued to October 9, 1986. No entry is recorded on the last mentioned date, but on November 13, 1986 the court recorded an apparent agreement by the parties to submit the case on briefs. The judgment rendered in accordance with respondent's petition was entered April 2, 1987. Following entry of an order to appellant to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failure to make child support payments in accordance with the judgment, this appeal was perfected.

Appellant advances two points of error. He first contends the Minnesota judgment was not entitled to recognition in Missouri because appellant was never a Minnesota resident, he was not personally served in Minnesota with a summons and complaint in the paternity suit and if the child were conceived in Minnesota, an act of intercourse is not conduct which entitled courts of Minnesota to acquire jurisdiction by service of process outside the boundaries of Minnesota. The argument purports to raise a constitutional issue of full faith and credit. There is no basis in this record to consider such a contention.

The Minnesota judgment includes the following recitation:

That on March 31, 1981, the defendant, Gary Bybee, was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint in the above-captioned action.

Nothing in any of the documentation filed even suggests how appellant was served, much less supports appellant's claim he was not present in Minnesota in 1981 and was not personally served there. Appellant offered no evidence at all to the court in Randolph County either by way of records from Minnesota showing the recitation of service in the judgment was qualified or suspect or even by his own testimony as to where he resided in 1981.

The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, § 511.760, RSMo 1986, provides for registration in Missouri of foreign judgments, being judgments, decrees or orders of a court of the United States of any state or territory which is entitled to full faith and credit in Missouri. Judgments rendered by a sister state must be given full faith and credit unless there was a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, a failure to give notice or fraud in the procurement of the judgment. Martin v. Adams, 718 S.W.2d 168, 169 (Mo.App.1986). It is presumed, absent a showing to the contrary, that a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state rendering a judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, followed the laws of...