Swaney v. Swaney


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01558-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-31-2007
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce - Judgment of foreign state - Res judicata - Lack of personal jurisdiction
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-24-2006
Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court
Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr.
Disposition: OVERRULED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Case Number: 2004-0211-GN-W

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MARIA L. SWANEY




WILLIAM L. DUCKER



 

Appellee: RICHARD C. SWANEY ALLEN FLOWERS  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Divorce - Judgment of foreign state - Res judicata - Lack of personal jurisdiction

Summary of the Facts: Richard Swaney was granted a divorce from Maria Swaney in Ohio. Subsequent to Richard finding Maria in Mississippi and collecting his vehicle awarded to him by the Ohio court, Maria attacked the Ohio judgment in the Chancery Court of Lamar County on jurisdictional grounds, and concurrently attacked jurisdiction in Ohio. The Ohio court ruled against Maria on the merits of her claim. The chancery court overruled Maria’s motion attacking jurisdiction based upon the doctrine of res judicata. Maria appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: At the time of appeal, it appears from the record that Richard had not attempted in any way to enforce his Ohio judgment in Mississippi nor attempted to enroll the Ohio judgment through the process provided for in sections 11-7-301 to 309. A cause of action attacking the judgment of a foreign state is not ripe until, and if, enrollment of that judgment is attempted. However, no objection was made by Richard to the proceedings on justiciability grounds. Through her motion contesting jurisdiction in the Ohio court, Maria had her opportunity to fully present her defense on her claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. After requesting a continuance for the purposes of preparation, she failed to attend the hearing on her motion. Nevertheless, the Ohio court ruled that it did have jurisdiction and dismissed Maria’s motion on its merits. Any further attempt to challenge the issue of personal jurisdiction would be barred. Thus, the trial court did not err in overruling Maria’s motion collaterally attacking the judgment of the Ohio court on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court