In Re the Marriage of Kimura
1991 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 222, 1991 WL 108324, 471 N.W.2d 869 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce decree if at least one spouse is domiciled within the state, even if the other spouse has no minimum contacts with the forum state. The due process minimum contacts standard from International Shoe and its progeny does not apply to the in rem adjudication of marital status.
Facts:
- Ken Kimura and Fumi Kimura, both citizens of Japan, were married in Japan in 1965.
- The couple began living apart in September 1973.
- Ken, a pediatric surgeon, moved to the United States in July 1986 and obtained permanent residency status ('green card') in October 1987.
- In November 1987, Ken moved to Iowa City, Iowa, to accept a tenure-track faculty position at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics.
- Ken established residency in Iowa by obtaining an Iowa driver’s license, opening local bank accounts, and forming an intent to remain in the state indefinitely.
- Fumi Kimura remained a resident of Japan and never visited or had any other contacts with the state of Iowa.
Procedural Posture:
- Ken Kimura filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Fumi Kimura in the Johnson County District Court, an Iowa trial court.
- Fumi Kimura filed a preanswer motion challenging the court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction, asking for the case to be dismissed or stayed in favor of pending proceedings in Japan.
- The district court denied Fumi's motion, ruling it had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the parties' marital status but lacked personal jurisdiction over Fumi to adjudicate financial matters.
- Fumi's request for an interlocutory appeal on the jurisdictional issue was denied.
- After a final hearing, the district court entered a decree dissolving the marriage.
- Fumi Kimura, as appellant, appealed the district court's final decree to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
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 state court's assertion of jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage, based solely on the petitioner's domicile in the state, violate the due process rights of a respondent spouse who lacks any minimum contacts with that state?
Opinions:
Majority - Lavorato, Justice
No. A state court's assertion of jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage does not violate due process when it is based on the domicile of the petitioning spouse, even if the respondent spouse has no minimum contacts with the state. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, which applied the minimum contacts test to in rem and quasi in rem actions, specifically carved out an exception for adjudications of status, such as divorce. Citing Williams v. North Carolina (Williams I), the court affirmed the long-standing principle that domicile of one spouse creates a sufficient connection for the state to adjudicate the marital status, which is viewed as a 'res' within the court's jurisdiction. The court adopted the 'divisible divorce' doctrine, which separates the court's power to change the marital status (an in rem action based on domicile) from its power to adjudicate personal obligations like alimony and property division (in personam actions requiring minimum contacts). Because the trial court limited its decree to only dissolving the marriage, its exercise of jurisdiction was proper.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional jurisdictional basis for divorce, establishing that the 'minimum contacts' standard, which governs most civil litigation, does not apply to the determination of marital status itself. It solidifies the 'divisible divorce' doctrine in Iowa, allowing state residents to obtain a divorce even if their spouse is beyond the court's personal jurisdiction. This prevents individuals from being 'trapped' in a marriage due to a non-resident spouse's refusal to appear, while still protecting the absent spouse's due process rights regarding financial matters by requiring personal jurisdiction for those issues to be adjudicated.
