Stump v. Stump
| Decision Date | 09 September 1982 |
| Citation | 89 A.D.2d 1029,454 N.Y.S.2d 333 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Doris A. STUMP, Respondent, v. Robert Brundel STUMP, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Waite, Berry & Reiter, Binghamton (Stanley B. Reiter, Binghamton, of counsel), for appellant.
Bernstein, Gitlitz & Sukloff, Binghamton (Donald M. Sukloff, Binghamton, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWEENEY, J. P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, entered May 20, 1981, which dismissed a petition to vacate prior orders of support and sequestration.
The parties to this appeal married in 1967. In 1979, they physically separated and the wife petitioned Family Court for support. Following a hearing, the court, by order dated November 2, 1979, awarded her support of $65 a week and directed that the husband maintain medical and dental insurance for her. The husband twice unsuccessfully sought modifications of that support order. Thereupon, he defaulted in his support payments, left the State, and took up residence in Nevada. In June, 1980, he commenced a divorce action in Nevada, serving the wife with the summons and complaint in New York. The wife did not appear in the Nevada action, and the husband obtained a judgment of divorce by default in July, 1980. Meanwhile, the wife brought a proceeding in Family Court to enforce arrears and was granted an order of sequestration against the husband's policeman pension benefits in this State. The husband then brought a petition in Family Court to vacate the orders of support and sequestration on the ground that the Nevada divorce decree divested Family Court of jurisdiction. It is from the dismissal of that petition that the husband now appeals.
The Family Court's order of dismissal was entirely proper. Service of process upon the wife in New York was ineffective to obtain personal jurisdiction over her in the Nevada divorce action, and, therefore, was equally ineffective to alter the support or other property rights she previously validly acquired (Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 1 N.Y.2d 342, 351, 153 N.Y.S.2d 1, 135 N.E.2d 553, affd. 354 U.S. 416, 77 S.Ct. 1360, 1 L.Ed.2d 1456; Estin v. Estin, 296 N.Y. 308, 73 N.E.2d 113, affd. 334 U.S. 541, 68 S.Ct. 1213, 92 L.Ed. 1561). Therefore, Family Court, having validly acquired jurisdiction and ordered support during the parties' marriage, continued to have jurisdiction to enforce this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. Roy
...the support order constitutes a waiver of those objections and he may not raise them in a collateral attack (see Matter of Stump v. Stump, 89 A.D.2d 1029, 1030, 454 N.Y.S.2d 333). Accordingly, the order should be Order affirmed, without costs. Opinion by CASEY, J., in which MAHONEY, P.J., a......
-
La Duke v. La Duke
...action (Estin v. Estin, 296 N.Y. 308, 311-314, 73 N.E.2d 113, affd. 334 U.S. 541, 68 S.Ct. 1213, 92 L.Ed. 1561; Matter of Stump v. Stump, 89 A.D.2d 1029, 454 N.Y.S.2d 333). The order of Family Court should therefore be reversed and the matter remitted to Family Court for further Upon remitt......
-
Garrison v. Muller
...for the present attack on its merits (see, Matter of Roy v. Roy, 109 A.D.2d 150, 153-154, 491 N.Y.S.2d 202; Matter of Stump v. Stump, 89 A.D.2d 1029, 1030, 454 N.Y.S.2d 333), and the present record is insufficient to support a finding of changed circumstances sufficient to support a downwar......