Hemenway v. Hemenway
992 A.2d 575, 159 N.H. 680 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a protective order for a resident, even if the alleged abuse occurred out-of-state. However, without personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant, the order is only enforceable as to its prohibitory provisions (e.g., no contact), not its provisions requiring affirmative acts (e.g., relinquishing firearms).
Facts:
- Michelle Hemenway and Edmund J. Hemenway, Jr. were married with four children and resided in Florida.
- On July 16, 2008, while in Florida, Edmund allegedly became verbally abusive and threatened Michelle and their children.
- On that same day, Michelle left Florida with the children and relocated to New Hampshire.
- On August 2, 2008, Edmund allegedly threatened Michelle at her parents' home in Dracut, Massachusetts.
- The couple later reached a mediated divorce settlement in Florida on May 14, 2009.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Hemenway filed a domestic violence petition against Edmund J. Hemenway, Jr. in the Derry Family Division, a trial-level court in New Hampshire.
- Edmund Hemenway, Jr., through counsel, filed a special appearance solely to contest the court's personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
- The family division determined it had jurisdiction, held a hearing on the merits, and issued a final protective order against Edmund.
- Edmund filed a motion to reconsider, which the family division denied.
- Edmund Hemenway, Jr. (appellant) appealed the final protective order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the state's highest 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 New Hampshire court have jurisdiction to issue a protective order against a non-resident defendant for acts of abuse that occurred entirely outside New Hampshire, and if so, what is the permissible scope of such an order when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Duggan, J.
Yes, in part. A New Hampshire court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a domestic violence petition from a resident even when the alleged abuse occurred out-of-state. However, while the court can issue an order prohibiting the defendant's conduct, it cannot enforce provisions requiring affirmative acts without personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction based on the plain language and protective purpose of RSA chapter 173-B, which allows a person who has fled abuse to file for protection in the county where they temporarily reside. The court rejected the argument that the statute's reference to the criminal code's definition of abuse also incorporates the criminal code's territorial limitations, as this would lead to an 'unjust and absurd' result. On personal jurisdiction, the court found insufficient minimum contacts to establish it. However, it adopted the 'status adjudication' exception, analogizing the protective order to a divorce decree. A state has a strong interest in determining the 'protected status' of its residents. Therefore, the portions of the order that prohibit conduct (no-contact, stay-away) are valid because they define the plaintiff's protected status within the state. In contrast, provisions requiring affirmative acts, such as relinquishing firearms, impose personal obligations that require traditional in personam jurisdiction, which was lacking here.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the jurisdictional reach of courts in domestic violence cases involving interstate parties. It establishes that a victim can secure protection in the state to which they have fled, providing immediate safety without having to return to the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred. The court's bifurcation of the protective order—upholding prohibitory injunctions while striking affirmative obligations—crafts a practical solution that balances the state's compelling interest in protecting its residents with the due process rights of non-resident defendants. This creates a powerful precedent for 'portable protection' that follows the victim, shaping how states handle domestic violence cases that cross state lines.
Unlock the full brief for Hemenway v. Hemenway