Gaboury v. Gaboury
988 A.2d 672, 2009 WL 4959514 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to adjudicate the economic claims of a divorce, such as equitable distribution and alimony, it must have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant spouse. Past residency in the forum state is insufficient to establish the required minimum contacts if the parties subsequently established a marital domicile elsewhere and the defendant has no other continuing, purposeful contacts with the forum.
Facts:
- Christopher Gaboury (“Husband”) lived in Texas and Lisa Gaboury (“Wife”) lived in Canada when they met online.
- In April 2004, both parties moved to Pennsylvania.
- The parties married in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on April 21, 2005, and resided in rental housing in the state.
- In December 2006, the couple relocated to Wisconsin for Husband’s job transfer and lived together in a rented apartment.
- The couple separated, and in August 2007, Wife moved back to Pennsylvania.
- Husband remained in Wisconsin, which was the location of the couple's last marital residence.
- The parties had no children and owned no real estate in either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
Procedural Posture:
- Wife filed a divorce complaint against Husband in a Pennsylvania trial court, including claims for equitable distribution, spousal support, and other economic relief.
- Husband, a Wisconsin resident, filed preliminary objections challenging the court's personal jurisdiction over him with respect to the economic claims.
- The trial court held a hearing and entered an order granting Husband's objections in part, dismissing all economic claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied Wife’s motion for reconsideration.
- The trial court subsequently entered a final decree of divorce.
- Wife, as appellant, appealed the order dismissing her economic claims to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Pennsylvania court have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for the purpose of adjudicating economic claims in a divorce action where the last marital domicile was in another state, and the defendant's only contacts with Pennsylvania are based on prior residence in the state before the couple relocated?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowes, J.
No. A Pennsylvania court lacks personal jurisdiction to adjudicate economic claims against a non-resident defendant in a divorce where the defendant's only contacts with the state are historical and the last marital domicile was established elsewhere. While a court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce decree based on the domicile of one spouse, adjudicating economic rights requires personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which is governed by the constitutional 'minimum contacts' standard. The unilateral act of the plaintiff spouse returning to the forum state cannot create jurisdiction over the non-resident spouse. Here, Husband's contacts with Pennsylvania (prior marriage and residence) were severed when the couple established their marital domicile in Wisconsin. Since Husband did not purposefully avail himself of Pennsylvania law after relocating, and the last marital domicile was in Wisconsin, exercising jurisdiction over him for economic claims would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, as established in precedents like International Shoe Co. v. Washington and Kulko v. Superior Court of California.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the concept of "divisible divorce," where a court may have subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage but lack the personal jurisdiction required to resolve ancillary economic claims. It clarifies that historical contacts with a forum, even significant ones like marrying and residing there, do not create perpetual personal jurisdiction in domestic relations cases. The decision emphasizes that once a new marital domicile is established, prior contacts with a former state become too attenuated to satisfy the due process requirements for personal jurisdiction, especially when the defendant has not purposefully re-engaged with the original state. This holding serves as a strong precedent against plaintiffs attempting to forum-shop by unilaterally returning to a state where the couple previously lived.
