Ketteman v. Ketteman
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1084, 2011 WL 3667442, 347 S.W.3d 647 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court lacks personal jurisdiction to impose monetary obligations, such as child support and debt division, on a non-resident spouse in a dissolution action if the parties never lived in lawful marriage within the state and the spouse lacks other sufficient minimum contacts with that state.
Facts:
- Rachel Ketteman and Michael Ketteman were married in Texas on December 6, 2004.
- The couple's only child was born in Texas on June 9, 2005.
- The parties separated on April 8, 2007, while living in Texas.
- In June 2007, Michael Ketteman moved with the child from Texas to Missouri.
- Rachel Ketteman never lived in Missouri.
- Rachel Ketteman's only contacts with Missouri consisted of passing through the state on trips and traveling to the state to enforce a court order regarding her son.
- The parties never held themselves out as husband and wife in Missouri, nor did they attempt to establish a home or re-establish their marriage in Missouri.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Ketteman filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri (trial court).
- The Family Court Commissioner initially found Rachel Ketteman in default and entered a judgment against her.
- Rachel Ketteman filed a Special Entry of Appearance to challenge jurisdiction and a Motion for Rehearing, prompting the Commissioner to set aside the default judgment.
- Rachel Ketteman filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the trial court denied.
- Rachel Ketteman filed for divorce in Texas, but the Texas court dismissed her petition, finding it lacked facts to support jurisdiction.
- Following a trial, the Missouri circuit court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage, awarding joint custody, and ordering Rachel Ketteman to pay child support and marital debts.
- Rachel Ketteman appealed the circuit court's final judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District (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 Missouri court have personal jurisdiction to order a non-resident spouse to pay child support and marital debts when the parties never lived in lawful marriage in Missouri and the spouse's only contacts with the state were incidental to travel and litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - James Edward Welsh
No. The circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter an in personam judgment for child support and debt division against Rachel Ketteman. A court's jurisdiction in a dissolution action is twofold: in rem jurisdiction over the status of the marriage, and in personam jurisdiction over the individuals to impose personal liabilities. To subject a non-resident to a monetary judgment in a dissolution case, Missouri's long-arm statute, Rule 54.06(b), requires that the person must have 'lived in lawful marriage within this state.' Because the Kettemans never lived in Missouri as a married couple, this statutory requirement was not met. Furthermore, Rachel Ketteman's other contacts with Missouri—passing through on trips and entering the state to enforce a court order—were insufficient to establish the minimum contacts required by constitutional due process. The court also rejected the argument that she waived her jurisdictional challenge, finding she preserved it by raising it at her first opportunity and reasserting it throughout the proceedings. However, the court affirmed the custody determination, finding the court had authority under the UCCJA because the Texas court had declined to exercise jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear illustration of the critical distinction between a court's power over marital status (in rem jurisdiction) and its power over individuals to impose financial obligations (in personam jurisdiction). The decision reinforces that state long-arm statutes and the constitutional 'minimum contacts' test strictly limit a court's reach in domestic relations cases involving non-residents. It establishes that a parent's unilateral act of moving a child to a new state does not, by itself, grant that state's courts personal jurisdiction over the other parent for monetary matters. This precedent protects non-resident defendants from being forced to litigate financial obligations in a forum with which they have no meaningful connection.
