Kohler v. Kohler

Connecticut Superior Court

Kohler v. Kohler

12 Conn. Super. Ct. 476, 12 Conn. Supp. 476, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 50

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 31, 1944

DocketFile 66735

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 Conn. Super. Ct. 476 (Kohler v. Kohler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kohler v. Kohler, 12 Conn. Super. Ct. 476, 12 Conn. Supp. 476, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 50 (Colo. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

INGLIS, J.

In this action the plaintiff prays a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and, by amendment, alimony. The plaintiff was for more than three years prior to the in' stitution of the action a resident of and domiciled in this State. The defendant, however, at the time of institution of the action was a resident of Maine. The only service of the writ and complaint made upon him was registered mail pursuant to an order of notice. The amendment praying alimony was likewise served upon him pursuant to an order of the court by registered mail addressed to Arcadia, Florida. He has received actual notice of the pendency of the action and of the amendment but he has entered no appearance to defend, nor has any property of his in this State been attached.

There can be no question but that the plaintiff has made-out a case of intolerable cruelty nor that this court has juris' diction to grant the divorce. As regards the claim for alimony, however, the situation is different.

It is fundamental that no court has jurisdiction to render a judgment in personam unless it has obtained jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Pennoyer vs. Neff, 95 U.S. 714. An award of alimony is in personam. It is therefore well settled that, even in an action in which the court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce, unless there has been an attachment which has brought assets of the defendant under the control of the court, the court has no jurisdiction to decree alimony *477 against a nonresident unless he has been personally served within the State or has submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction by entering an appearance. Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §116, comment d; 17 Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, §518, p. 422; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, §333b, p. 1298; Note, 9 L.R.A. n.s. 593; Keezer, Marriage and Divorce (2nd ed. 1923) §678; 2 Schouler, Marriage and Divorce (6th ed. 1921) §§1762, 1866. In as much as the defendant in this case is a nonresident of this State who has never been served with process in this State and has never entered to defend this action, the court is without jurisdiction to enter an in personam judgment for alimony against him.

Judgment may enter finding actual notice, and that it is not necessary to appoint counsel to represent the defendant, and decreeing a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

INGLIS, J.

In this action the plaintiff prays a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and, by amendment, alimony. The plaintiff was for more than three years prior to the in' stitution of the action a resident of and domiciled in this State. The defendant, however, at the time of institution of the action was a resident of Maine. The only service of the writ and complaint made upon him was registered mail pursuant to an order of notice. The amendment praying alimony was likewise served upon him pursuant to an order of the court by registered mail addressed to Arcadia, Florida. He has received actual notice of the pendency of the action and of the amendment but he has entered no appearance to defend, nor has any property of his in this State been attached.

There can be no question but that the plaintiff has made-out a case of intolerable cruelty nor that this court has juris' diction to grant the divorce. As regards the claim for alimony, however, the situation is different.

It is fundamental that no court has jurisdiction to render a judgment in personam unless it has obtained jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Pennoyer vs. Neff, 95 U.S. 714. An award of alimony is in personam. It is therefore well settled that, even in an action in which the court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce, unless there has been an attachment which has brought assets of the defendant under the control of the court, the court has no jurisdiction to decree alimony *477 against a nonresident unless he has been personally served within the State or has submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction by entering an appearance. Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §116, comment d; 17 Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, §518, p. 422; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, §333b, p. 1298; Note, 9 L.R.A. n.s. 593; Keezer, Marriage and Divorce (2nd ed. 1923) §678; 2 Schouler, Marriage and Divorce (6th ed. 1921) §§1762, 1866. In as much as the defendant in this case is a nonresident of this State who has never been served with process in this State and has never entered to defend this action, the court is without jurisdiction to enter an in personam judgment for alimony against him.

Judgment may enter finding actual notice, and that it is not necessary to appoint counsel to represent the defendant, and decreeing a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Conn. Super. Ct. 476, 12 Conn. Supp. 476, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohler-v-kohler-connsuperct-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack