T. J. K. v. N. B.
237 So. 2d 592 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A paternity action is an action in personam seeking to establish a personal financial obligation, which requires a court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant through personal service of process; constructive service by publication is insufficient.
Facts:
- N. B. gave birth to a child on October 26, 1962.
- N. B. alleged that T. J. K. was the father of her child.
- T. J. K. was a non-resident defendant.
- T. J. K. was not personally served with a summons or complaint regarding the paternity suit.
- T. J. K. did not voluntarily appear in court to defend the suit on its merits.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 13, 1962, N. B. filed a paternity suit against T. J. K. in a Florida trial court.
- Service of process on T. J. K. was made by publication in a newspaper.
- T. J. K., through a special appearance, moved to quash the service of process as insufficient.
- In 1963, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that constructive service was proper in a paternity suit.
- T. J. K. did not file any further pleadings, and a decree pro confesso (default judgment) was entered against him.
- On May 6, 1964, the trial court entered a final summary decree determining T. J. K. was the father of the child.
- On September 26, 1969, T. J. K. filed a motion for relief from the final decree, arguing it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- On October 20, 1969, a successor judge denied the motion for relief, finding the jurisdiction issue had already been adjudicated (res judicata).
- T. J. K. (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion for relief to the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District.
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 court have jurisdiction to enter a judgment in a paternity action when the defendant was served only through constructive service by publication?
Opinions:
Majority - Cross, Chief Judge
No. A court does not have jurisdiction, and any resulting judgment is void. A paternity suit is an action in personam because its primary purpose is to establish a basis for a personal judgment of financial support. Unlike an in rem action that determines status (like divorce), a paternity judgment does not establish a full parental relationship, such as rights to custody or inheritance. Citing Pennoyer v. Neff, actions in personam require personal jurisdiction, which can only be obtained by personally serving the defendant within the court's territory or through the defendant's voluntary appearance. Since T. J. K. was only served by publication and did not appear, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person, rendering the final decree void. A judgment that is void on its face for lack of jurisdiction can be challenged and set aside at any time.
Dissenting - Walden, Judge
Yes. The court did have jurisdiction and the judgment should be affirmed. First, the trial court had already ruled on the jurisdictional issue in 1963, and the defendant failed to appeal that decision; therefore, the matter is res judicata and cannot be relitigated. Second, the action is properly characterized as in rem because it solely determines the status of the relationship between the father and the child. As an in rem action, constructive service by publication was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the classification of paternity suits as in personam actions within Florida law, emphasizing that the primary goal is imposing a personal financial obligation. By doing so, it reinforces the traditional due process requirements for personal jurisdiction articulated in Pennoyer v. Neff, protecting non-resident defendants from judgments entered without proper notice. The ruling distinguishes paternity from divorce, clarifying that merely determining parentage does not constitute a 'status' determination sufficient to justify in rem jurisdiction, thereby limiting the scope of cases where constructive service is permissible.
Unlock the full brief for T. J. K. v. N. B.