Venegas v. Gurganus
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01621-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01621-SCT2003-CA-01621-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 06-09-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 09-21-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Paternity - Jurisdiction - Section 37-103-5 - Section 93-9-15 - Notice Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ. |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-18-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Stuart Robinson Case Number: G-2002-1266 |
|
| Note: | Link Inactive | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Katie Venegas |
|||
| Appellee: | James David Gurganus |
|
||
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: | Paternity - Jurisdiction - Section 37-103-5 - Section 93-9-15 - Notice |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Katie Venegas and James Gurganus are the unwed parents of a minor child. Gurganus commenced a paternity action, petitioning the court to adjudicate paternity, award child support, determine health care responsibility, and establish visitation. Venegas filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Mississippi court did not have jurisdiction because she was a Louisiana resident and the child was born in Louisiana. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction and granted relief to Gurganus. Venegas appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Venegas argues that the court had no jurisdiction to act in this case, because she was in Mississippi for the sole purpose of attending the University of Southern Mississippi and section 37-103-5 clearly states that a person who has entered Mississippi for the purpose of enrolling in an educational institution is a nonresident of Mississippi. Section 93-9-15 provides that a chancery court has jurisdiction over paternity actions. Therefore, the chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. With regard to personal jurisdiction, the legislature's intent in enacting section 37-103-5 was to define residents and non-residents for the sole purpose of determining tuition costs, not to determine jurisdiction. Here, the relationship and conduct which resulted in the child’s birth occurred in Mississippi. Gurganus and Venegas were residing in Mississippi, attending separate universities. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in exercising jurisdiction. Issue 2: Notice Venegas argues that the record of the proceedings is without the requisite notices, summons, orders and settings to properly set this case for hearing and to allow the court to proceed. Venegas’ counsel appeared for the hearing and participated by cross-examining the plaintiff and by calling a witness during her case-in-chief. However, Venegas did not object to or challenge any irregularities in the service of process. Venegas' motion to dismiss asserted that the court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction, but failed to mention any alleged insufficiencies in the service of process. Because this issue was not first presented to the chancellor for a decision, it will not be reviewed on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
