Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0225JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff Vo JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant : 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. F' ,m2 / : : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO F1ND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 Dated: By: Respectfully submitted, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LL Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. #44837 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff is Jean M. Keating, an adult individual residing at 2935 Momingside Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. Defendant is Jung Suk Keating, an adult individual believed to be residing at 1927 Third Avenue, Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, 17901. 3. Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, married Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. on October 5, 1946 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about April 23, 1986, Benjamin Keating filed a Complaint in Divorce against Jean M. Keating in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and docketed to No. 1168 Civil 1986. 5. At the time the Divorce Complaint was filed, Jean M. Keating was residing at 2935 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and Benjamin Keating, although residing in South Korea due to his employment, maintained a permanent residence in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 6. Both parties retained counsel in the divorce proceedings; Benjamin Keating was represented by Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, and Jean M. Keating was represented by John J. Connelly, Jr., Esquire. 7. The Divorce Complaint filed by Mr. Keating contained a Count for Equitable Distribution of the marital property and counsel for both parties began settlement negotiations regarding resolution of the economic issues. One of the primary issues in the divorce proceedings was the value of Mr. Keating's Federal Government Pension and whether Jean Keating would be named as a survivor for receipt of benefits upon his death. 8. On or about December 5, 1988, Jean Keating filed for spousal support through the Domestic Relations Section of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. An Order was subsequently entered requiring Benjamin Keating to pay spousal support in the amount of $400.00 per month. 9. The Divorce Complaint was dismissed by the Court sua sponte on October 31, 1989 for lack of docket activity. 10. Despite the dismissal of the divorce action, Benjamin Keating continued to engage in settlement negotiations for resolution of the economic issues. By way of example, copies of letter from Benjamin Keating dated November 20, 1989 and March 12, 1993, are attached hereto, incorporated herein, and marked Exhibit "A". Both letters confirm Mr. Keating's continuing negotiation of the economic issues. 11. Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. died on October 11,2001 in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. ~ 12. Mr. Keating paid spousal support to Jean Keating pursuant to the aforementioned Support Order from the date of its entry through the date of his death. On November 2, 2001, the support action was terminated, effective October 11, 2001, "pursuant to the Defendant being deceased." A true and correct copy of the November 2, 2001 Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "B". 13. On November 14, 2001, Jean M. Keating filed an Application for Death Benefits under Benjamin F. Keating, Jr.'s Federal Civil Service Retirement as she believed she was Mr. Keating's surviving spouse at the time of his death. Mrs. Keating's request for benefits was made with the Retirement Operations Center of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 14. On February 21, 2002, a benefits specialist with OPM notified Jean Keating that she was "not entitled to a survivor annuity as you were not married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death." A true and correct copy of the letter is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "C". 15. In its February 21, 2002 correspondence, the OPM provided a copy of a Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987, purportedly entered in the Superior Court of Guam, Territory of Guam, and stating that Benjamin and Jean Keating were divorced as of that date. This was the first time that Jean Keating had ever seen the Divorce Decree. She had never been served with notice from either Mr. Keating or any court in the Territory of Guan~ that a Divorce Complaint or any other action had been filed or, for that matter, finalized. A true and correct copy of the Decree is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and marked Exhibit "D". 16. Jean Keating requested reconsideration of the denial of benefits as she believed she was the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. Subsequently, by letter dated December 23, 2002, the OPM advised her that, as there were "competing claimants" for the survivor benefits, in order for her to establish her eligibility for survivor benefits as the surviving widow of Benjmnin F. Keating, Jr. "it will be necessary to have a state court of competent jurisdiction establish the validity of your marriage as of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001." A true and correct copy of the December 23, 2002 letter is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "E". 17. It is believed, and therefore averred, that Jung Suk Keating is the "competing claimant" as she has claimed that she was married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death. 18. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987 issued by the Superior Court of Guam was entered without jurisdiction and without notice to her and, accordingly, cannot be given full faith and credit by this Court. 19. Benjamin Keating never established a domicile in Guam. His own affidavit attached to the Complaint in Divorce which was signed by him on August 18, 1987, states that he came to Guam on August 11, 1987, only seven days prior to the date of the Divorce Decree. (See Exhibit "D") 20. Moreover, Jean Keating was not afforded due process in the Guam proceedings as she never received notice of the Guam proceedings and, thus, she had no opportunity to be heard. The Guam divorce papers as set forth in full in Exhibit "D" are devoid of any reference to notice being given to Mrs. Keating. The documents, however, indicate that Benjamin Keating personally appeared in the proceedings. 21. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that as the Divorce Decree entered in the territory of Guam on August 18, 1987, is invalid and cannot be afforded full faith and credit by this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a determination by this Court that she was legally married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death on October 11, 2001. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, respectfully requests that this Court, after hearing, enter a declaratory judgment that she was legally married to Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. at the time of his death and, thus, is his legal widow. Respectfully submitted, S'~'~h-'M'~. Kadel, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. No. 44837 VERIFICATION I, Jean M. Keating, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. J~M' Keating' Petiti°r{er~- ~ y Exhibit "A" NOVEMBER 20. 1989 JOHN. J CONNELLY. JR 108 - 112 WALNUT STREET P.O. BOX 963 HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108 DEAR MR CONNELLY: I RECEIVED THIS DATE. YOUR LETTER AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS REQUESTING THAT I SIGN THE DEED TO RELINQUISH ALL CLAIMS TO THE RESIDENCE AT 293B MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA. I HAVE FORWARDED THESE PAPERS TO MY ATTORNEY. LESLIE M. FIELDS, 83i MARKET STREET, LEMOYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 17043. SHE KNOWS MY FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT AND WILL BE CONTACTING YOU TO STATE MY WISHES IN THE MATTER. PLEASE FORWARD ALL FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH LESLIE FIELDS. SHE REMAINS MY ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND I WANT HER OPINION/COMMENTS ON ANY CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING JEAN. S I NCERELY DEAR JEAN: -SOMETIME AGO YOUR ATTORNEY MADE TO ME A PROPOSAL THAT I SIGN OVER MY HALF OF THE HOUSE THAT WE OWN IN JOINT TENANCY TO YOU. I REJECTED THE SUGGESTION AT THAT TIME. RECENTLY I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT OUR SITUATION AND I WOULD LiKE TO OFFER YOU A COUNTER PROPOSAL THAT I FEEL WiLL BE BENEFICIAL TO YOU AND I AND OUR TWO SONS. I PROPOSE THAT I SIGN OVER TO YOU MY HALF OF THE HOUSE IN PERPETUITY, IN EXCHANGE FOR A REDUCTION OF MY MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO YOU FROM $40~.D1~ TO $2~.~ MONTHLY FOR AS LONG AS YOU SHOULD LIVE AND A STATEMENT FROM YOU THAT YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER CLAIMS AGAINST ME. THIS SOLUTION WOULD ALLOW YOU TO SELL OR R~T THE HOUSE AS YOU SEE FIT. THE HOUSE WOULD A~ BECOME, TOTALLY, A F'ART OF YOUR ESTATE AND CAN BE LEFT TO OUR TWO SONS IN THE CASE OF YOUR DEMISE. WE ARE BOTH GETTING OLDER AND IF YOU WERE TO PASS AWAY BEFORE ME, I WOULD TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE HOUSE AS I HAVE NO PLACE TO LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA. ALSO AS THINGS NOW STAND, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A CLAIM AGAINST THE HOUSE TO PAY MEDICAL BILLS SHOULD I BE STRICKEN WITH A PROLONGED OR TERMINAL ILLNESS (AS IN THE CASE OF MY DAD). IF I AM NO LONGER A HALF OWNER THAT THREAT WILL BE REMOVED. I WILL ALSO SIGN A STATEMENT THAT NEITHER I OR MY SON PATRICK WILL MAKE ANY FUTHER CLAIMS AGAINST YOU OR YOUR ESTATE. PLEASE TALK THIS OVER WITH YOUR ATTORNEY AND IF YOU BOTH AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL, HAVE YOUR ATTORNEY PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO: 1. NOTIFY THE CARLISLE COURTS OF THE CHANGE FROM $4DO.~D TO $2~.0~ OF MY MONTHLY PAYMENT. 2. TO SIGN OVER MY HALF OF THE HOUSE TO YOU 3. STATEMENTS OF ~URTHER CLAIMS. I HOPE THAT TI;IS STRAIGHTFORWARD F'ROPOSAL MEETS WiTH YOUR APPROVAL. Exhibit "B" In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania DO?vI,ESTIC RELATIONS SECTIO~N JE,A.\' M. KEATING Plaintiff BF~NjA~.~I_N F, KI~AT!NG JR DoukeI Number PACSES Case Numbt:r Other Stat,.- ID Number 891 S 1988 294(]GOP~27 :D1579~ that: Order AND NOW to wit, this No'~.,,m.=a : 2:01 it is hereby Ordered THE ABOV~ CAPTIONED SUPPORT OR~ER IS P~JRSU~N~ TO THE D~FEN~ BEING DECEASED. THERE iS NO BALANCE DUE THE PLAiNTiFF BY THE COLRT: JL'D(iE F~,rlu OH-00] W'~rkcr [D 21C¢5 Exhibit "C" United States Office of Personnel Management Retirement Operations Center PO Box 45 Boyers, Pennsylvania 16017 Jean M. Keating 2935 Momingside Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 February 21, 2002 Dear Ms. Keating: This is sent in response to your inquiry and application for benefits in the case of the late Benjamin Keating Jr., CSF 2703496. Senator Arlen Specter's office forwarded your letter and asked us to reply directly to you. As requested, we have enclosed a copy of the divorce decree in which you were named, albeit you indicate that you were never notified of the proceedings. As you know, our court order benefits section determined that the document was legal, and that it did not provide former spouse survivor benefits to you under federal law. In addition, the designation of beneficiary copy submitted by your attorney is no longer valid, as it was superceded by a subsequent designation filed in 1985. We regret to inform you that you are not entitled to a survivor annuity, as you were not married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death. This is the initial decision of the Office of Personnel Management on this matter. To request reconsideration of this decision, follow the instructions in the enclosed form, RI38-47. Please note the 30-day time limit to request reconsideration. Enclosure Sincerely, Lacy Houston Benefits Specialist Priority Correspondence cc: Senator Arlen Specter 228 Walnut Street Po Box 1092 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Exhibit "D" 7 $ !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ON P. ARKIN$ON ~ttorney ~t Lnw 29 92 F. Floras Bt. ,.~a, ~uam ~910 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS. ) ) Jean M. Keating, ) ) Defendant ) ) FILED DOMESTIC CASE N S L~ F ,Z," ' .',: .,, . FINAL DECREE OF'DIVORCE (with hearing) The Court has signed an Interlocutory Decree in this matter. The COurt finds that it is now appropriate to issue a final decree of divorce, with hearing. Cause has been shown to shorten time. The Plaintiff personally appeared. Now on mPtion of the Plaintiff, Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. it is THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED ANDDECREED that the Plaintiff is hereby granted, upon the grounds stated in the Complaint, a final decree of divorce from the Defendant, Jean M. Keating. All terms and conditions con- ! tained in the Interlocutory of Divorce are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Final Decree of Divorce. Don Parkinson is he[eby discharged as attorney-of- record for Plaintiff. The Wife's maiden name, Jean Muriel Ki~ta:~ck is not restored to her. EITHER PARTY IS NOW FREE TO REMARRY SO ORDERED THIS DaY OF ~U~ I ~ 1~87 , 198 Original Signed: Hon, Pea;er C. $iguer~za, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM SUBMITTED BY: DON PARKINSON Attorney for Plaintiff DV300aj IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., Plaintiff vs. Jean M. Keating, Defendant DOMESTIC CASE NO. 900-87 AFFIDAVIT OF RESIDENCY _Benjamin F. Keating, for affidavit, certifies, declares and states that I have been physically present in Guam. I am physically present in Guam now. I have been on Guam since the llth day of August , 1~7 I have taken the following steps to become a resident of Guam: 1. I have obtained a Guam driver's license, number 1891555 I have opened a bank account atCalifornia Overseas Bank account number 796-7793 3. I have registered to vote, Tumon district. I have complied with the residency requireqments set forth in Sections 128 and 129 of the Civil Code of Guam. I declare and state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Guam that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this ~ day'of Agana, Guam 1987. in F. KeatingJr. ) Ss SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this /~ day of~,~ NOTARY PUBLIC - Wm. DON PARK:N~O~T N · .t~i ~ lC DV300F-b5 28 DON PA~.ION$ON 1O~ lt'. J'loL,~s St. ~um ~910 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ~IAM TERRITORY OF GUAM ] Benjamin F.'Keat'ing, Jr. ) DOME~IC CASE NO. 2 ) Plaintiff ) 3 ) ~I~R~UTORY DECREE OF vs. ~ \% \~9O~CE (with hearing) 5 Defendant ) C~ ? 7 This cause came on regularly for.consideration on the 8 uncontested divorce of the Plaintiff, .Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. 9 from the Defendant, Jean M. Keating, with hearing, 10 by Judge of the Superior Court of Guam. The Plaintiff ]! personally appeared. The Court finds that it has acquired 12 jurisdiction over this matter, and the Court finds that the 13 Clerk properly entered the default of the Defendant. The ]4 Court has reviewed the complaint and any supporting documents, ]5 and hereby finds that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint ]6 are sufficient to allow the court to grant an uncontested div- 17 orce to the Plaintiff!upon the grounds stated in the Complaint ]8 that it is appropriate that the Court enter a default judgement ]9 herein for divorce and for such other relief as is requested 20 in Plaintiff's Complaint: The Plaintiff personally appeared. 21 NOW T~RREFORE, IT IS ORDERED DECREED ABqD ADJUDGED: 22 1. The Plaintiff is hereby granted an interlocutory 23 decree of divorce from the Defendant, and that when six (6) 24 months have expired after the filing of the Complaint 25 for divorce herein, a Final Judgment and Decree shall be ~6 entered upon motion of either party or upon the Court's own 27 motion granting a divorce herein, dissolving the bonds of matrimony now existing between the Plaintiff and Defendant. DV300Acc 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 )N PAP,.KIN$ON ~orney ~t L~ ~9 ~ F. Flore. St. iana. Guam 96910 · . 477-7637 Interlocutor' Decree Keating vs. k~ating Page 2 2. The Court finds there are no minor children of the marriage. 3. The Court reserves jurisdiction over all matters not disposed of in this divorce proceedings or by written agreement or stipulation of the parties to be reserved for determination at a later date by a court of competent jurisdiction. SO ORDERED, this day of AUS18 l$87 , 198 Original Sit'ned: limn. Peter C. S~uea~a, Jr. JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM SUBMITTED BY: DON PARKINSON Attorney for Plaintiff ~s · ltd] true a~ c~r~ c~y of t~ ~g nsl mn ~e in t~ ~ce of ~ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM I TERRITORY OF GUAM 2 ~enjamin F. Keating, Jr., ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. ) 3 Plaintiff ) ) 4 vs. ) ) 5 lean M. Keating, ) ) 6 Defendant ) ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on Parkinaon ttorney at Law )2 F. Flores St. 29 · 477-7637 COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff who alleges as follows: 1. This is a cause of action other than one arising under the 2onstitution or a treaty or law of the United States. The jurisdiction )f this matter has been transferred to the Superior Court of Guam by 82 of the Civil Code of Guam, and other sections of the Guam 2. The parties are married to each other. concerning the marriage as required by law are: a. b. C. d. The statistical facts The parties married on 10-5-46 at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania Date of Separation: 8-8-78 Years from marriage to separation: 32 years. No. of minor children of the marriage: none 3. The wife's maiden name was: Jean Muriel Kimmick 4. Since the marriage of the parties, the Defendant has treated the Plaintiff with extreme cruelty. o debts not herein enumerated REPUBLIC OF KOREA ) SPECIAL CITY OF SEOUL ) EMBASSY OF TIlE ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) The parties have or will make disposition of all property and Subscribed and sworn to before me, Consul of the United States of Ameriee at Seoul, Korea. duly eommissioned ~ qualified this day o! Parkinson rneyat Law ~.Flores S~. [77-7637 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 vs. Keating rage z 6. There'are rio minor children of the marriage. Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays: a. That the Plaintiff be granted a divorce by the Superior Court )f Guam, as well as such other relief as may be specifically in writing ~tipulated to or agreed to by the parties, with jurisdiction over all not disposed of in this divorce proceedings or by written agree- or stipulation of the parties to be reserved for determination at a later date by a court of competent jurisdiction. b. That the court find that the parties have already or will the property of the marriage. Attorney for the Plaintiff REPUBLIC OF KOREA UNITED STATES OF AMER/CA/ Subscribed and swo~m to before me, Consul of the Unite~ States of Amerie:: at Seoul, Korea. 4uly eommlasioned and ~ - this day o! ' 4 ";ed Consul of r:.~ ~Lt~:ed S~ates of ,--..rtc~ DV300F-b9 Don Parkinson Attorney at Law 192 F. Flores St. Agana, Guam Ph. 477-7637 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 COMPLAINT Keating vs. THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE NOTARIZED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: a. A notary public in one of the States or Territor- ies of the United States of America, or b. If you are out of the United States, a United States Counsular Officer. c. If you are out of the United States and in the United States Military or a military dependent on accomp- anied tour, you may sign this before a military officer or other person authorized to take oaths for for U.S. milit- ary personnel and their dependents pursuant to U.S. law. rage VERIFICATION The undersigned, Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the undersigned is a party to the above entitled matter; the foregoing document is true of the undersigned's own knowledge, except to matters which are therein stated on information or belief; and as to these matters, the undersigned believes them to be true. I declare and verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of Guam that the forgoing~s true and correct. Executed this Pu uc ov KO A B.A~S, SY OF THE [T:-D STATES OF A.~{ER!C.^) ' - Subscribed and sworn to be£ore me this day of JO~ 4 ~87 198 , by Benjamin F. Keating, ~r.. ~o~E~[ic o~ o~he~ person au~o~zed ~o ~a~e oaths DV300F-bl0 Exhibit "E" United States Office of Personnel Management Washington, DC 20415-0001 December 23, 2002 CSF 2 703 496 Jean M. Keating 2935 Morningside Dr Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dear Ms. Keating: Your March 20, 2002, request for reconsideration has been reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. We cannot make a final decision at this time because we need additional information. We are unable to recognize the validity of your marriage to Mr. Keating the basis of the evidence in the file. In order to establish your eligibility for survivor benefits as the surviving widow of Mr. Benjamin F. Keating Jr., it will be necessary for you to have a state court of competent jurisdiction establish the validity of your marriage as of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed you in the February 22, 2002, initial decision, that the August 18, 1987, Guamanian divorce decree has been determined to be valid. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. The judicial proceedings of territorial courts, including courts in the territory of Guam, are entitled to "full faith and credit" by statute, 28 United States Code Section (U.S.C.) 1738. Furthermore, a court presiding in Guam is expressly recognized as a "court" for purpose of 5 U.S.C. Section 83450). Therefore, the August 18, 1987 divorce decree issued by the Superior Court of Guam must be accepted for processing unless it is subsequently found to be invalid. OPM will accept the divorce decree as a valid decree unless a State court issues a determination that the divorce decree is invalid and you are the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. Since you have filed for reconsideration, the competing claimants have been notified per Title 5 U.S.C., Section 831.109(g), which states: (g) Competing claimar~ts:. (1) When a competing claimant files a request for reconsideration under this section, the other competing claimants shall be notified of the request and given an opportunity to submit written substantiation of their claim. (2) When a determination in favor of one claimant would affect another claimant, all claimants concerned will be notified of that decision and those adversely affected will be given an opportunity to request reconsideration. OPM shall not execute its decision until the time limit for requesting reconsideration has expired. If reconsideration has been requested, OPM shall take no action after the reconsideration decision is rendered until the time limit to appeal has expired. You have 30 days fxom the date of this correspondence to submit further documentation. Please submit any judicial decree addressing the question of whether Jean Keating or Jung Keating is the legal widow of Benjamin Keating, or proof that an action on that issue is pending in State court. If we do not receive a judgement, or proof of filing an action, we will make a final decision after the 30-day time limit has expired. Please send any submissions to: US Office of Personnel Management Retirement and Insurance Service Legal Reconsideration Branch, Rm 3468 1900 E St NW, Attn: D. Bakaysa Washington, DC 20415-3550 CC: John J. Connelly Jr. Sincerely, Dennis R. Bakaysa Benefits Specialist Disability, Reconsideration and Appeals Division SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY ~SE NO: 2003-00225 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KEATING JEAN M VS KEATING JUNG SUK R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: KEATING JUNG SUK but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of SCHUYLKILL County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On January 24th , 2003 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from SCHUYLKILL Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Schuylkill Co 18.00 9.00 10.00 27.80 .00 64.80 01/24/2003 So answers R.~ Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County JAMES SMITH DURKIN CONNELLY Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ ~ day of ~__ ~00~ A.D. --/ / Prothonot~rl~ - Wed Jan 22, 2003.10:32AM SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT HOUSE POTTSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17901 (570) 622-5570 * * A F F I D AV I T OF RETURN * * PAGE: 1 DEPUTIZED FROM CUNBERLAND coLrNTy PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: PEOPLE: KEATING,JEAN M COURT NUMBER V S FILED BY KEATING,JUNG SUK TYPE OF PAPER SERVING NUMBER I PRO FILE DATE I EXPIRATION I SHF RECEIVED I DEP RETURNED 2003-225 CIVIL CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF COMPLAINT 32801 02/14/2003 01/17/2003 01/22/2003 {PEOPLE TO BE SERVED) Service for NAME ADDRESS 1 KEATING,JUNG SUK 1927 THIRD AVENUE (ATTEMPTS AT SERVICE) SEQ DATE TIME SERVED TO ADDRESS 1 ADDRESS 2 1 01/21/2003 10:22 JUNG SUK KEATING 1927 THIRD AVE * REMARKS : SERVICE MADE BY DEPUTY TAYLOR, S Total : 7.30 Total Mileage Charge for all Services : 7.30 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT HOUSE POTTSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17901 (570) 622-5570 * * A F F I D AV I T O F RETURN * * I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that service was made by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY to : JUNG SUK KEATING (PERSONAL) ON 1927 THIRD AVE 01/21/2003 POTTSVILLE PA at 10:22 SWORN and subscribed before me this day of ~ ~ ~rothonorary) SO ANSWERS - (Deputy Sheriff) (Sheriff of Schuylkill County) End - of - Return (X 17-2003) Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:32AM SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT HOUSE POTTSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17901 {570) 622 5570 * * A F F I D AV I T O F RETURN * * PAGE: 3 COSTS INFORMATION DESCRIPTION PAYMENTS 3kDVANCE COSTS - SERVICE 140.00 RD&R SERVICE ADD SERVICE MILEAGE PROTHY FEE FOR SERVICE REFUND CHARGES BALANCE 140.00 9.00 131.00 9.00 122.00 0.00 122.00 7.30 114.70 2.50 112.20 112.20 0.00 Advance Payment : 140.00 Cost of Service : 27.80 Refund Paid 112.20 End - of - Return (2003 225 CIVIL) ACCOUNT STATEMENT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY Case Ref : 2003-225 CIVIL Service ID: 32801 Type : COMPLAINT Filed By: CL94BERLAND COLrNTy SHERIFF Address 1 : COURT HOUSE Address 2 : City : CARLISLE Advance Payment : Cost of Service : 27.80 Refund 112.20 DATE : 01/22/2003 iN THE COURT OF COIqf4ONPLEAS OF CUHBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEAN H. KEATING Plaintiff, V. JUNG SUK KEATING Defendant. No. 03-225 CIVIL ACTION-- LAW NOTTCE TO DEFEND AND CI_A.~Iq R~GHT~ You have been sued in Court. ]~f you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and judgment may also be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complain1:. or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFF[CE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Legal Services, Inc. 8 ]~rvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 766-8475 IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN~ 3EAN M. KEAT[NG Plaintiff, V. 3UNG SUK KEATING Defendant. No. 03-225 CIVIL ACTION-- LAW PRELTMI'NARY OB3ECTI~ONS TO COMPLAINT AND NOW, Come the Defendant, :lUNG SUK KEATING by and through her Attorney, Claude A. Lord Shields, brings these Preliminary Objections to the Complaint of Plaintiff as fellows: 1. Defendant is .lUNG SUK KEATING, an adult individual residing at, 1927 Third Avenue, Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania 17(.)01. 2..lUNG SUK KEA'I-ING is the widow of BEN]AIVlIN F. KEA'I'ING JR., who died on October 11, 2001. 3..]UNG SUK KEATiNG is the mother and BENJAMIN F. KEATING JR. was the father of PATRICK KEA'I'[NG, age 18, who currently resides with his mother. 4. Plaintiff in this Action, JEAN M. KEA'I'ING, is 'the ex-wife of BENJAMIN F. KEATING JR. .]UNG SUK KEA'I'ING and BEN.]AMIN F. KEA'I'ING JR. were married on August 20, 1987 as evidenced by the Report and Certificated of marriage attached as "Exhibit A". The Plaintiff JEAN M. KEA'I-[NG and BEN.]AMIN F. KEATING JR. were divorced by Action of the Superior Court of Guam, Territory of Guam on August 18, 1987. (A copy of the Final Decree of Divorce is attached hereto as "Exhibit B". 5. The Decree of Divorce from the Territory of Guam is properly entered and is entitled to full faith and credit from all States of the United States in accordance with the terms of the United States Constitution. 6. The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is without jurisdiction to enter an Order affecting the validity of the Decree of the Superior Court of the Territory of Guam, dated August 18, 1987. 7. The validity of the Guam Decree may not be attacked by an Action in the Court of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. Since the time of the marriage of BEN`lAMIN F. KEATING .IR. and .lUNG SUK KEATING in 1987, until the time of the death of BEN.IAMIN F. KEATING .IR. in 2001, they lived openly as husband and wife in the Territory of Guam, the Republic of Korea, and the City of Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Defendant, ,lUNG SUK KEATING requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Action for Declaratory -iudgment in that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the Action as set forth in the Complaint for Declaratory -iudgment filed by Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, Claude A. Lord Shields, Esq. Attorney ]~.D. No. 32576 Attorney for Defendant, .lung Suk Keating 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA ].796:1 (570) 366-5175 IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 3FAN M. KEATING : : Plaintiff, : V. : 3UNG SUK KEATING : : Defendant. : No. 03-225 c~r~L ACTION-- LAW VER/FICATION I, .~UNG SUK KEA'I-[NG, verify that the statements made in these Preliminary Objections are true and correct. ! understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A Section a,90~,, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date ~UNG~UK KEAT~NG ~/ "EXHIBIT A" "EXHIBIT B" IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) Jean M. Keating, ) ) Defendant ) _) FILED ,S Lt F .7,- ' ,~....,. .~,. ,c.. ~.- FINAL, DECREE' OF' DIVORCE (with hearing). i0 The Court has signed an Interlocutory Decree in this 11 matter. The Court finds that it is now appropriate to issue 12 a final decree of divorce, with hearing. Cause has been 13 shown to shorten time. The Plaintiff personally appeared. Now on motion of the Plaintiff, Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. 14 it is THER~FORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 15 Plaintiff is hereby granted, upon the grounds stated in the 16 Complaint, a final decree of divorce from the Defendant, Jean M. Keating. All terms and conditions con- ! 17 tained in the Interlocutory of Divorce are incorporated herein 18 by reference and made a part of this Final Decree of Divorce. Don Parkinson is hereby discharged as attorney-of- record for Plaintiff. The Wife's maiden name, Jean Muriel Kimmick is not restored to her. EITHER PA~TY IS NOW FaEE TO R~MA~RY SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF AU~ 1 8 1987 , 198 OriginalSign~d: Hon,~c~erC. Siguenza, jl, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM DOg ~Z~SO~ ~ Atto~ey for Plaintiff ~ " ~ DV300aj IN THE COURT OF CCH~O~?.~.~S OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS/q.VANIA JEAN M. KEATING Plaintiff, V. JUNG SUK KEATING Defendant. No. 03--'!25 CIVIL ACTION--LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Claude A. Lord Shields, Esqui~:e, attorney for the Defendant, JUNG SUK KEATING, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Complaint on the following by U.S. Mail on Februar~ 24, 2003. Susan M. Kadel, Esquire Attorney for plaintiff Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 570-366-5175 I.D. No. 325'76 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 03-225 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 Dated: By: Respectfully submitted, ~Su~Kad~l, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. #44837 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff Vo JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 03-225 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADING AND NOW this 28th day of February, 2003, comes the above-named Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, by and through her attorney, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire, and James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP, files Preliminary Objections and in support thereof avers the following: 1. January 15, 2003, Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County and docketed to the above-captioned term and number. 2. The Complaint was served upon the Defendant, Jung Suk Keating, personally by the Sheriff' s Department of Schuylkill County on January 21, 2003, at 10:22 a.m. A true and correct copy of the Sheriff's Return is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and marked Exhibit "A". 3. On February 24, 2003, Defendant, by and through her counsel, Claude A. Lord Shields, filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint. A true and correct copy of the Preliminary Objections are attached hereto, incorporated herein, and marked Exhibit "B". 4. Said Preliminary Objections where filed thirty-four (34) days following service of the Complaint on the Defendant. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1026, every pleading subsequent to the Complaint shall be filed within twenty (20) days after service of the Pleading. Additionally, there was no agreement between counsel to modify the requisite time period pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 248. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, respectfully requests that this Court strike the Defendant, Jung Suk Keating's, Preliminary Objections as they are untimely filed. Date: Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DURK1N & CONNELLY, LLP Susan~~~~----~ Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 PA I.D. No. 44837 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 03-225 : : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire, of James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Motion to Strike Pleading, on the following on the date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. MAIL, FIRST CLASS, PRE-PAID Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 DATE: JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY S~dell E~squire Attorney for Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 PA I.D. No. 44837 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff V. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-225 · CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW this 28th day of February, 2003, comes the above-named Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, by and through her attorney, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire, and James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP, and hereby files Plaintiff's Answers to Preliminary Objections. 1. 2. Admitted upon information and belief. Denied. Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., was legally married to the Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, at the time of his death· 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is unable to determine the truth of the matter asserted in paragraph 3 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial· 4. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required· To the extent a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiff is the ex-wife of Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., as she was legally married to him at the time of his death· Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is unable to determine the troth of the averments in paragraph 8 and therefore strict proof is required at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to overrule the Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant. Respectfully submitted, Date: ,a~/'~'/O-'~ By: JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP Attorney for Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 PA I.D. No. 44837 JEAN M. KEAT1NG, Plaintiff V. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-225 · CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire, of James, Smith, Durkin & Colmelly, attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Answers to Preliminary Objections, on the following on the date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. MAIL, FIRST CLASS, PRE-PAID Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 DATE: JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY Attorney for Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 PA I.D. No. 44837 IN THE COURT OF CO~4ONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff, V. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant. No. 03-225 CIVIL ACTION-- LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Defendant, JUNG SUK KEATING by and through her Attorney, Claude A. Lord Shields, hereby answer the complaint as follows: Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. It is admitted that in 1986 JEAN M. KEATING resided at 2935 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, PA. It is denied that Benjamin Keating maintained a permanent residence in Camp Hill Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted. 7[ It is admitted that the Divorce Complaint filed in 1986 in Cumberland County contained a count of equitable distribution of marital property. It is denied that JEAN KEATING would be named as the survivor for receipt of benefits upon his death. 8. It is denied that JEAN KEATING was entitled to spousal support in 1988. It is admitted that Benjamin F. Keating agreed to pay alimony in the amount of $400.00 per month. 9. It is admitted that the Divorce Complaint filed in Cumberland County was dismissed by the Court, the Complaint being made moot by the entry of the Divorce Decree in the Territory of Guam dated August 18, 1987. 10. It is admitted that subsequent to the Divorce granted in the Territory of Guam that BENJAMIN Keating And Plaintiff engaged in negotiations for resolution of economic ties that still remained between the parties. It is denied that' the parties negotiated any settlement other that the agreement by Benjamin Keating to pay $400 in alimony per month during his lifetime. il.Admitted. 12. Denied. It is admitted that Benjamin Keating paid alimony payments to JEAN KEATING through the date of his death. 13. Denied. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to ~orm a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations of paragraph 13. Strict proof thereof is required. 14. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations of paragraph 14. Strict proof thereof is required. 15. It is admitted that a Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987 entered in the Superior Court of Guam, Territory of Guam divorced Benjamin and Jean Keating as on that date. It is specifically denied that JEAN KEATINC; was unaware of the Divorce and subsequent remarriage of Benjamin Keating. 16. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations of paragraph 16. Strict proof thereof is C[emanded. 17. It is admitted that JUNG SUK KEATING IS "competing claimant", by way of further answer, JUNG SUK KEATING was married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death. 18. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987, issued by the Superior Court of Guam, was entered without jurisdiction and without notice to the Plaintiff. It is further denied that the Divorce Decree is not entitled to full faith and credit by this Court. 19. Denied By way of further Answer, Benjamin Keating e~tablished all requirements necessary for the Entry of a Decree of Divorce in the Territory of Guam. 20. Denied. Specifically denied that JEAN KEATING was not a party in the Guam Proceedings. Admitted that Benjamin Keating personally appeared in the proceedings. 21.Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JUNG SUK iKEATING respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order dismissing the Complaint of Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, Claude A. Lord Shields, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 32576 Attorney for Defendant 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 (570) 366-5175 1 TN THE COURT OF COMtVlONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, V. Defendant. No. 03-225 CIVIL ACTION-- LAW VERiFiCATi. ON I, ]UNG SUK KEA'I'[NG, verify that the statements made in this Answer are true and correct. I understand that false statements hereiin are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date .~UNG SUK KEATING I'N THE COURT OF COIqMONPLEAS OF CUHBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANTA JEAN M. KEATTNG : Plaintiff, : V. : 3UNG SUK KEAT/NG : : Defendant. : No. 03-225 PRAEC]:PE TO WITHDRAW PRELIMINARY OB3ECI TO: The Prothonotary: Kindly withdraw the Preliminary Objections in the above-captioned rr Respectfully submitted: e A. Lord Shields, Esqui Attorney ID# 32576 201 West Marke~ Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 570-366-5175 ~tter. CIVIL ACTION-- La JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff Vo JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-225 · CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION FOR HEARING AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2003, comes the above-named Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, by and through her attorney, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire, and James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, and files this Motion for Hearing, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On or about January 15, 2003, Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. A tree and correct copy is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "A". 2. On or about March 17, 2003, Defendant filed an Answer to Complaint. A true and correct copy is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "B". WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to schedule a Hearing in the above-referenced matter to finalize the issues raised in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. Date: Respect fully,,Submptlg~ [,,S~a~adel, Esquire ~ ~ Attorney for Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717)533-3280 Attorney I.D. No. 44837 Exhibit "A" JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff Vo JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · 1N THE COURT O17 COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 'No. · CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Dated: Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 Respectfully submitted, By: Susan M. Kadel, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LL Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. #44837 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. · CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff is Jean M. Keating, an adult individual residing at 2935 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. Defendant is Jung Suk Keating, an adult individual believed to be residing at 1927 Third Avenue, Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, 17901. 3. Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, married Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. on October 5, 1946 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about April 23, 1986, Benjamin Keating filed a Complaint in Divorce against Jean M. Keating in the Court of Common Ple, as of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and docketed to No. 1168 Civil 1986. 5. At the time the Divorce Complaint was filed, Jean M. Keating was residing at 2935 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and Benjamin Keating, although residing in South Korea due to his employment, maintained a permanent residence in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 6. Both parties retained counsel in the divorce proceedings; Benjamin Keating was represented by Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, and Jean M. Keating was represented by John J. Connelly, Jr., Esquire· 7. The Divorce Complaint filed by Mr. Keating contained a Count for Equitable Distribution of the marital property and counsel for both parties began settlement negotiations regarding resolution of the economic issues. One of the primary issues in the divorce proceedings was the value of Mr. Keating's Federal Government Pension and whether Jean Keating would be named as a survivor for receipt of benefits upon his death. 8. On or about December 5, 1988, Jean Keating filed for spousal support through the Domestic Relations Section of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. An Order was subsequently entered requiring Benjamin Keating to pay spousal support in the amount of $400.00 per month. 9. The Divorce Complaint was dismissed by the Court sua sponte on October 31, 1989 for lack of docket activity. 10. Despite the dismissal of the divorce action, Benjamin Keating continued to engage in settlement negotiations for resolution of the economic issues. By way of example, copies of letter from Benjamin Keating dated Novetnber 20, 1989 and March 12, 1993, are attached hereto, incorporated herein, and marked Exhibit "A". Both letters confirm Mr. Keating's continuing negotiation of the economic: issues. 11. Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. died on October 1 I, 2001 in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. ,, 12. Mr. Keating paid spousal support to Jean Keating pursuant to the aforementioned Support Order from the date of its entry through the date of'his death. On November 2, 2001, the support action was terminated, effective October 11, 2001, "pursuant to the Defendant being deceased." A true and correct copy of the November 2, 2001 Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "B". 13. On November 14, 2001, Jean M. Keating filed an Application for Death Benefits under Benjamin F. Keating, Jr.'s Federal Civil Service Retirement as she believed she was Mr. Keating's surviving spouse at the time; of his death. Mrs. Keating's request for benefits was made with the Retirement Operations Center of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 14. On February 21, 2002, a benefits specialist with OPM notified Jean Keating that she was "not entitled to a survivor annuity as you were not married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death." A true and correct copy of the letter is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "C". 15. In its February 21, 2002 correspondence, the ()PM provided a copy of a Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987, purportedly entered in the Superior Court of Guam, Territory of Guam, and stating that Benjamin and Jean Keating were divorced as of that date. This was the first time that Jean Keating had ever seen the Divorce Decree. She had never been served with notice from either Mr. Keating or any court in the Territory of Guam that a Divorce Complaint or any other action had been filed or, for that matter, finalized. A true and correct copy of the Decree is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and marked Exhibit "D". 16. Jean Keating requested reconsideration of the denial of benefits as she believed she was the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. Subsequently, by letter dated December 23, 2002, the OPM advised her that, as there were "competing claimants" for the survivor benefits, in order for her to establish her eligibility for survivor benefits as the surviving widow ofBenjatnin F. Keating, Jr. "it will be necessary to have a state court of competent jurisdiction establish the validity of your marriage as of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001." A tree and correct copy of the December 23, 2002 letter is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "E". 17. It is believed, and therefore averred, that Jung Suk Keating is the "competing claimant" as she has claimed that she was married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death. 18. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987 issued by the Superior Court of Guam was entered without jurisdiction and without notice to her and, accordingly, cannot be given full faith and credit by this Court. 19. Benjamin Keating never established a domicile in Guam. His own affidavit attached to the Complaint in Divorce which was signed by him on August 18, 1987, states that he came to Guam on August 11, 1987, only seven days prior to the date of the Divorce Decree. (See Exhibit "D") 20. Moreover, Jean Keating was not afforded due process in the Guam proceedings as she never received notice of the Guam proceedings and, thus, she had no opportunity to be heard. The Guam divorce papers as set forth in full in Exhibit "D" are devoid of any reference to notice being given to Mrs. Keating. The documents, however, indicate that Benjamin Keating personally appeared in the proceedings. 21. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that as the Divorce Decree entered in the territory of Guam on August 18, 1987, is invalid and cannot be afforded full faith and credit by this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a determination by this Court that she was legally married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death on October 11, 2001. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, respectfully requests that this Court, after hearing, enter a declaratory judgment that she was legally married to Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. at the time of his death and, thus, is his legal widow. Respectfully submitted, ~Kadel, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. No. 44837 VERIFICATION I, Jean M. Keating, verify that the statemems made in the foregoing Complaint are tree and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: J~g{n M' Keating' Pciiti°n~r-- ~ 7 Exhibit "A" NOVEMBER 20. JOHN. J CONNELLY. JR 108 - I12 WALNUT STREET P.O. BOX 963 HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108 DEAR MR CONNELLY: I RECEIVED THIS DATE. YOUR LETTER AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS REQUESTING THAT I SiGN THE DEED TO RELINQUISH ALL CLAIMS TO THE RESIDENCE AT 2~35 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE CAMP HILL PENNSYLVANIA. ' ' i HAVE FORWARDED THESE PAPERS TO M! ATTORNEY. LESLIE M. FIELDS, 83i MARKET STREET, LEMOYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 17043. SHE KNOWS MY FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT AND WILL BE C0NTACTIN~ YOU TO STATE MY_ WISHES IN THE MATTER. PLEASE FORWARD ALL FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH LESLIE FIELDS. SHE REMAINS MY ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND ! WANT HER OPINION/COMMENTS ON ANY CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNIN~ JEAN. SINCERELY -SOMETIME AGO YOUR ATTORNEY MADE TO ME A PROF'OSAL THAT i SiGN OVER MY HALF OF THE HOUSE THAT WE OWN IN JOINT TENANCY TO YOU. ! REJECTED THE SUGGESTION AT THAT TIME. RECENTLY I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT OUR SITUATION AND I WOULD LiKE TO OFFER YOU A COUNTER PROPOSAL THAT I FEEL WiLL BE BENEFICIAL TO YOU AND I AND OUR TWO SONS. I PROPOSE THAT I SiGN OVER TO YOU MY HALF OF THE HOUSE IN PERPETUITY, IN EXCHANGE FOR A REDUCTION OF MY MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO YOU FROM $4~1~.01~! TO $2~.88 MONTHLY FOR AS LONG AS YOU SHOULD LiVE AND A STATEMENT FROM YOU THAT YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER CLAIMS AGAINST ME. THiS SOLUTION WOULD ALLOW YOU TO SELL OR RE~.T THE HO~ ~ vn~ SEE ~ THE HOUSE "~'" ~ ^ ~ TOTALLY, A PART OF YOUR ESTATE AND CAN BE LEFT TO OUR TWO SONS iN THE CASE OF YOUR DEMISE. WE ARE BOTH GETTING OLDER AND IF YOU WERE TO PASS AWAY BEFORE ME, I WOULD TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE HOUSE AS I HAVE NO PLACE TO LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA. ALSO AS THINGS NOW STAND, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A CLAIM AGAINST THE HOUSE TO PAY MEDICAL BILLS SHOULD I BE STRICKEN WITH A PROLONGED OR TERMINAL ILLNESS (AS IN THE CASE OF MY DAD). IF I AM NO LONGER A HALF OWNER THAT THREAT WILL BE REMOVED. I WILL ALSO SIGN A STATEMENT THAT NEITHER I OR MY SON PATRICK WILL MAKE ANY FUTHER CLAIMS AGAINST YOU OR YOUR ESTATE. PLEASE TALK THIS OVER WITH YOUR ATTORNEY AND IF YOU BOTH AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL, HAVE YOUR ATTORNEY PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO: 1. NOTIFY THE CARLISLE COURTS OF THE CHANGE FROM $4~D.~ TO $2~11~.~; OF MY MONTHLY PAYMENT. 2. TO SIGN OVER MY HALF OF THE HOUSE TO YOU 3. STATEMENTS OF FURTHER CLAIMS. ,.~J ~ , r..~. O,-i , r LJRWARD PROPOSAL t'iE~TS WiTH YC, UR APPROVAL. Exhibit "B" In the Court of Conunon Pleas of CUMBERLAND Count?', Pennsylvania DONLESTIC RELATIONS SECTION ) ) ?ACSE$ Case Number ) Other Sta~,.~ ID Nun'tD=r 294 C C C C 2 ~ ' 'D~. ~,7c~/. AND NOW t, wit, this Order it is hereby Ordered THE ABOVE CAPTiONeD SUPPORT PURSUANT "O TH~ D~FE.N'i~A~N'T ~EiNG 2ECEASED. THERE iS NO BALANCZ DUE THE PLAiNTiFF BY THE COLRT: JL'DGE F.rln Wnrk~r ID 21CC5 Exhibit "C" United States Offici of' Personnel Management Retirement OperAtions Center PO Box 45 Boyers, Pennsylvania 16017 Jean M. Keating 2935 Morningside Drive Camp Hill, PA 1701 t February 21, 2002 Dear Ms. Keating: This is sent in response to your inquiry and application for benefits in the case of the late Benjamin Keating Jr., CSF 2703496. Senator Arlen Specter's office forwarded your letter and asked us to reply directly to you. As requested, we have enclosed a copy of the divorce decree in which you were named, albeit you indicate that you were never notified of the proceedings. As you know, our court order benefits section determined that the document was legal, and that it did not provide former spouse survivor benefits to you under federal law. In addition, the designation of beneficiary copy submitted by your attorney is no longer valid, as it was superceded by a subsequent designation filed in 1985. We regret to inform you that you are not entitled to a survivor annuity, as you were not married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death. This is the initial decision of the Office of Personnel Management on this matter. To request reconsideration of this decision, follow the instructions in the enclosed form, RI38-47. Please note the 30-day time limit to request reconsideration. Enclosure cc: Senator Arlen Specter 228 Walnut Street Po Box 1092 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Sincerely, Lacy Houston Benefits Specialist Priority Correspondence Exhibit "D" 2 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. Plaintiff vs. Jean M. Keating, De fendant FILED DO S::ZC CXS . FINAL DECP,.EE' OF'DIvoRCE (with hearing) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 !0 The Court has signed an Interlocutoz-f Decree in this 11 matter. The Court finds that it is now appropriate to issue 12 a final decree of divorce, with hearing. Cause has been shown to shorten time. The Plaintiff personally appeared. 13 Now on motion of the Plaintiff, Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. 14 it is THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the I$ Plaintiff is hereby granted, upon the grounds stated in the Complaint, a final decree of divorce from the Defendant, Jean M. Keating. All terms and conditions con- ! tained in the Interlocutory of Divorce are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Final Decree of Divorce. Don Parkinson is hereby discharged as attorney-of- record for Plaintiff. The Wife's maiden name, Jean.Muriel Kimmick is not restored to her. EITHER PARTY IS NOW FREE TO R~kRRY SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF AU~ I 8 1~87 , 198 Origin al Signed: Hon, Peter C. Siguer=a, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ! ~ es~f7 ti, at t~ 26 SUBMITTED BY: b, ~ ~ ,~ ~.-~, i'7' ~ON ~NSON F.F~S~. Atto~e~ for Plaintiff n~.Gu~ ~910 DV300aj IN THE SUPERIOR ~COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., Plaintiff VS. Jean M. Keating, Defendant DOMESTIC CASE NO. R00-87 AFFIDAVIT OF RESIDENCY _Benjamin F. Keating, for affidavit, certifies, declares and states that I have been physically present in Guam. I am physically present in Guam now. I have been on Guam since the llthday of August , 1~7 . I have taken the following steps to become a resident of Guam: 1. I have obtained a Guam driver's license, number 1891555 2. I have opened a bank account atCa!ifornia Overseas Bank account number 796-7793 3. I have registered to vote, Tumon district. I have complied with the residency requireqments set forth in Sections 128 and 129 of the Civil Code of Guam. I declare and state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Guam that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this ~ day of Agana, Gua/n ) Ss 1987. Benjamin F. KeatingJr. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of~x~, ]r_. , NOTARY PUBLIC- Wm. DON PARK.NS ~ . .~.~ Lr ~c DV300F-b5 ~n and fo ch= t.¢r~'icoe'V ........ ~---- ~ 1 2 3 4 6 TERRITORY OF GUt~M Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. Plaintiff VS. Jean M. Keating, Defendant This cause came on regularly for consideration on the 8 ~ncontested divorce of the Plaintiff, · Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. 9 from the Defendant, Jean M. Keating, with hearing, 10 by Judge of the Superior Court of Guam. The Plaintiff personally appeared. The Court finds that it has acquired ]2 jurisdiction over this matter, and the Court finds that the ]3 Clerk properly entered the default of the Defendant. The ]4 Court has reviewed the complaint and any supporting documents, and hereby finds that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint are sufficient to allow the court to grant an uncontested div- 17 orce to the Plaintiff: upon the grounds stated in the Complaint 18 that it is appropriate that the Court enter a default judgement ]9 herein for divorce and for such other relief as is requested 10 in Plaintiff's Complaint: The Plaintiff personally appeared. 21 NOW TM~.REFORE, IT IS ORDERED DECREED AND ADJUDGED: 22 23 1. The Plaintiff is hereby granted an interlocutory decree of divorce from the Defendant, and that when six (6) 24 months have expired after the filing of the Complaint for divorce herein, a Final Judgment and Decree shall be 16 entered upon motion of either party or upon the Court's own 27 motion granting a divorce herein, dissolving the bonds of 28 )N PARKIN$ON' :~u~, Gu--,',, 96910 ,. matrimony now existing between the Plaintiff and Defendant. DV300Acc 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 )N P~SON 2 F. F~ St. 'aha, Gusto 96910 -. 477-7637 Interlocutor- Decree Keating vs. k~ating Page 2 z marri ag e. 3. The Court finds there are no minor children of the The Court reserves jurisdiction over all matters not disposed of in this divorce proceedings or by written agreement or stipulation of the parties to be reserved for determination at a later date by a court of competent jurisdiction. SO ORDERED, this day of AUS18 1987 , 198 Original $1Cn~ , H®n. Peter C. Si~ueaza, Jr. JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM SUBMI~D BY: DON PARKINSON Attorney for Plaintiff ~ Parkinson 3rney at Law F. Flores St. 477-7637 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 TH~ SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM ~amin F. Keating, Jr., Plaintiff VS. lean M. Keating, Defendant DOMESTIC CASE NO. COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff who all~ges as follows: 1. This is a cause of action other than one arising under the ;ion or a treaty or law of the United States. The jurisdiction this matter has been transferred to the Superior Court of Guam by 82 of the Civil Code of Guam, and other sections of the Guam Code. 2. The parties are married to each other. The statistical facts :oncerning the marriage as required by law are: a. The parties married on 10-5-46 at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania b. Date of Separation: 8-8-78 c. Years from marriage to separation: 32 years. d. No. of minor children of the marriage: none 3. The wife's maiden name was: Jean Muriel Kimmick 4. Since the marriage of the parties, the Defendant has treated the Plaintiff with extreme cruelty. 5. The parties have or will make disposition of all property and SPECIAL CrFY OF MEOUL ) EMBASSY OF TRE UNtiED STATES OF AMERICA) Subscribed and sworn to before me, Consul o! the Unitec] States of ~.meriea at Seoul, Korea. duly commissioned and qualified this thy of 4 ~,O~ul of the 7 & 9 I0 11 12 13 15 16 1'/ ~8 19 2O 21 22 23 2.4 25 26 27 28 arkineon ~e~ at Law Flores St. 29 (~,,am ?-7637 1 2. 3 4 5 6 .6. There are no minor children 'of the marriage. W]aerefore, the Plaintiff prays: a. That the Plaintiff be granted a divorce by the Superior Court f Guam, as well as such other relief as may be specifically in writing stipulated to or agreed to by the parties, with jurisdiction over all not disposed of in this divorce proceedings or by written agree- or stipulation of the parties to be reserved for determination at a date by a court of competent jurisdiction. b. That the court find that the parties have alraady or will the property of the marriage. Attorney for the Plaintiff Subscribed and swo~n to before me, Consul of the Unite~l States of Americ:; at Seoul, Korea. duly commissione~] and , this day of ";ed ¢on~u~ of t:,,- tl-t. ted St.a~:es of ,.~ .rt~ DV300F-b9 on Parkinson ~torney at Law )2 F. Flores St. gana, Guam a. 4??-763? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 Keating vs. Kc lng THIS DOCUMENT MUST B.E NOTARIZED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING' a. A notary public in one of the States or Territor- ies of the United States of America, or b. If you are out of the United States, a United States Counsular Officer. c. If you are out of the United States and in the United States Military or a military dependent on accomp- anied tour, you may sign this before a military officer or other person authorized to take oaths for for U.S. milit- ary personnel and their dependents pursuant to U.S. law. VERIFICATION The undersigned, Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. being first sworn, deposes and says that the undersigned is a party to the above entitled matter; the foregoing document is true of the undersigned's own knowledge, except to matters which are therein stated on information or belief; and as to these matters, the undersigned believes them to be true. I declare and verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of Guam that the forgoing~s true and correct. Executed this ~ day 6,~)~!~[~( , 1~$/..~. ?UBLI, OF KOREA ) "~//~- '~ ,; c~ ">--/f/Y./~.~.~ '~1. ..'cm_-. ClW OF s -ou B.A.S~SY OF THE ) S. $. /Ben~unln r. Keat,ng, IT:'.r) STATES OF Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 198 , by Benjamin F. Keating, Jr.. au~orized to t~e oaths DV300F-bl0 Exhibit "E" United States Office of Personnel Management Washington, DC 20415-0001 December 23, 2002 Jean M. Keating 2935 Morningside Dr Camp Hill, PA 17011 CSF 2 703 496 Dear Ms. Keating: Your March 20, 2002, request for reconsideration has been reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. We cannot make a final decision at this time because we need additional information. We are unable to recognize the validity of your marriage to Mr. Keat:ing the basis of the evidence in the file. In order to establish your eligibility for survivor benefits as the surviving widow of Mr. Benjamin F. Keating Jr., it will be necessary for you to have a state court of competent jurisdiction establish the validity of your marriage as of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed you in the February 22, 2002, initial decision, that the August 18, 1987, Guamanian divorce decree has been determined to be valid. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. The judicial proceedings of territorial courts, including courts in the territory of Guam, are entitled to "full faith and credit" by statute, 28 United States Code Section (U.S.C.) 1738. Furthermore, a court presiding in Guam is expressly recognized as a "court" for purpose of 5 U.S.C. Section 8345(j). Therefore, the August 18, 1987 divorce decree issued by the Superior Court of Guam must be accepted for processing unless it is subsequently found to be invalid. OPM will accept the divorce decree as a valid decree unless a State court issues a determination that the divorce decree is invalid and you are the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. Since you have filed for reconsideration, the competing claimants have been notified per Title 5 U.S.C., Section 831.109(g), which states: (g) Competing claim ~ara~t~ s:. (1) When a competing claimant files a request for reconsideration under this section, the other competing claimants shall be notified of the request and ~ven an opportunity to submit written substantiation of their claim. (2) When a determination in favor of one claimant would affect another claimant, all claimants concerned will be notified of that decision and those adversely affected will be given an opportunity to request reconsideration. OPM shall not execute its decision until the time limit for requesting reconsideration has expired. If reconsideration has been requested, OPM shall take no action after the reconsideration decision is rendered, until the time limit to appeal has expired. You have 30 days from the date of this correspondence to submit further documentation. Please submit any judicial decree addressing the question of whether Jean Keating or Jung Keating is the legal widow of Benjamin Keating, or proof that an action on that issue is pending in State court. If we do not receive a judgement, or proof of filing an action, we will make a final decision after the 30-day time limit has expired. Please send any submissions to: US Office of Personnel Management Retirement and Insurance Service Legal Reconsideration Branch, Rm 3468 1900 E St NW, Attn: D. Bakaysa Washington, DC 20415-3550 CC: John J. Connelly Jr. Sincerely, Dennis R. Bakaysa Benefits Specialist Disability, Reconsideration and Appeals Division Exhibit "B" IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff, V. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant. No. 03-225 CIVIL ACTION-- LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Defendant, JUNG SUK KEATING by and through her Attorney, Claude A. Lord Shields, hereby answer the complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. It is admitted that in 1986 JEAN M. KEATING resided at 2935 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, PA. It is denied that Benjamin Keating maintained a permanent residence in Camp Hill Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted. 7. It is admitted that the Divorce Complaint filed in 1986 in Cumberland County contained a count of equitable distribution of marital property. It is denied that JEAN KEATING would be named as the survivor for receipt of benefits upon his death. 8. It is denied that JEAN KEATING was entitled to spousal support in 1988. It is admitted that Benjamin F. Keating agreed to pay alimony in the amount of $400.00 per month. 9. It is admitted that the Divorce Complaint filed in Cumberland County was dismissed by the Court, the Complaint being made moot by the entry of the Divorce Decree in the Territory of Guam dated August 18, 1987. 10. It is admitted that subsequent to the Divorce granted in the Territory of Guam that BENJAMIN Keating And Plaintiff engaged in negotiations for resolution of economic ties that still remained between the parties. It is denied that the parties negotiated any settlement other that the agreement by Benjamin Keating to pay $400 in alimony per month during his lifetime. Il.Admitted. 12. Denied. It is admitted that Benjamin Keating paid alimony payments to JEAN KEATING through the date of his death. 13. Denied. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations of paragraph 13. Strict proof thereof is required. 14. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations of paragraph 14. Strict proof thereof is required. 15. It is admitted that a Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987 entered in the Superior Court of Guam, Territory of Guam divorced Benjamin and Jean Keating as on that date. It is specifically denied that JEAN KEATING was unaware of the Divorce and subsequent remarriage of Benjamin Keating. 16.?taintiff is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations of paragraph 16. Strict proof thereof is C[emanded. 17. It is admitted that JUNG SUK KEATING IS ~competing claimant", by way of further answer, JUNG SUK KEATING was married to Benjamin Keating at the time of his death. 18. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Divorce Decree dated August 18, 1987, issued by the Superior Court of Guam, was entered without jurisdiction and without notice to the Plaintiff. It is further denied that the Divorce Decree is not entitled to full faith and credit by this Court. 19. Denied By way of further Answer, Benjamin Keating established all requirements necessary for the Entry of a Decree of Divorce in the Territory of Guam. 20. Denied. Specifically denied that JEAN KEATING was not a party in the Guam Proceedings. Admitted that Benjamin Keating personally appeared in the proceedings. 21.Denied as a required. legal conclusion to which no response is WHEREFORE, Defendant, JUNG SUK KEATING respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order dismissing the Complaint of Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, Claude A. Lord Shields, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 32576 Attorney for Defendant 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 (570) 366-5175 TN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI'A 3EAN H. KEAT.TNG : : Plaint_iff, : V. : 3UNG SUK KEAT.~NG : Defendant. : No. 03-225 CI¥IL ACT];ON-- LAW VEi~.F~CATZON ]:, .]UNG SUK KEAT]:NG, veri~ that the statements made in this Answer are true and correct. ]: understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff Vo JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-225 · CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire, of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, attorney for the Plaintiff, Jean M. Keating, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Motion for Hearing on the following on the date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. MAIL, FIRST CLASS, PRE-PAID Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 DATE: JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY BY~t~ee ~~, x-~~ Attorney for Plaintiff Post Office Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. No. 44837 JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff Vo JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-225 · CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ,.~ day of (~~ 2003, upon consideration of the within Motion for Heating, a hearing is hereby scheduled for the ~(~ day of ('/t~¢d ~-~ ~' ,2003, at / ' ,-~ C,) °'cl°ck 7t~---'m' in C°urt R°°m N°' 7 ofthe Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT: JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff VS. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-225 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this Io ~' day of November, 2003, the court finds and declares that Jean M. Keating was the wife of Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., on the date of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001, and Jean Keating is, therefore, the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. BY THE COURT, ,/Susan M. Kadel, Esquire For the Plaintiff K/~.~. Hess, J. ,/4~laude A. Lord Shields, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm II-t2-o'D JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-225 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1N RE: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, J. OPiNION AND ORDER Jean Keating (Jean) seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court stating that she was legally married to Ben Keating (Ben) at the time of his death. The testimony adduced at the hearing of this matter reveals very little dispute as to the facts. Ben and Jean Keating were married October 5, 1946 and lived together in Cumberland County. Ben worked for the United States government and the nature of his work required that he spend most of his time overseas, mostly in South East Asia. When Ben came back to the United States he would stay with Jean but the couple never resided together after 1978. In 1986, Ben filed for divorce here in Cumberland County. Ben and Jean entered into settlement negotiations during which there was dispute regarding the value and distribution of Ben's federal government pension. In 1987, Ben traveled to Guam, a territory of the United States. While in Guam for seven days, Ben obtained a driver's license, opened a bank account, and registered to vote. Meeting the Guam residency requirements, Ben sought and was granted a divorce from Jean Keating. Neither Ben nor the Guam court notified Jean that a divorce had been filed or finalized. Jean had, in fact, no notice or knowledge of that divorce action. 03-0225 CIVIL Two days after the Guam divorce Ben married Jung Suk Keating in Korea. They returned to the United States together and resided in Schuylkill County. They lived openly as man and wife and raised a son. Ben's divorce from Jean was never finalized in this court. In fact, in 1989, Ben's divorce complaint against Jean was dismissed due to lack of docket activity. In 1998, Jean filed for spousal support. As a result, Ben was ordered to pay Jean four hundred dollars ($400) a month. He made those monthly payments until his death on October 11, 2002. Shortly before his death, Ben attempted to negotiate some economic issues with Jean. He also transferred sole interest in their former marital home, where she still resided. After Ben's death, Jean filed an application for death benefits under Ben's Federal Civil Service retirement. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed Jean that she was not entitled to survivor annuity because she was not married to Ben at the time of his death. The OPM provided Jean a copy of the August 18, 1987 divorce decree from the Superior Court of Guam. This was the first knowledge Jean had of the Guam divorce. Jean requested that the OPM reconsider her application for the survivor annuity. Because Jung Suk Keating was already receiving the survivorship annuity, the OPM told Jean that there were "competing claimants" for Ben's annuity. The OPM advised Jean that a state court could establish the validity of her marriage to Ben at the time of his death. Jean seeks a Declaratory Judgment from this court stating that she was legally married to Ben Keating at the time of his death. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Record, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by the General Laws prescribe the Manner in 2 03-0225 CIVIL which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. The Act of June 26, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 947, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, provides: The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and the seal of the court aimexed, ifa seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge or the court that such attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. The defendant correctly observes that this court must accept the divorce decree from the Superior Court of Guam unless it is found to be invalid. It is, however, precisely because the decree is invalid that we will refuse to recognize it. This court is not required to give full faith and credit to a judgment rendered without jurisdiction or without notice and a fair opportunity to be heard; due process of law mandates that a court not recognize such a judgment. Barnes v. Buck, 346 A. 2d 778, 782 (Pa. Super. 1975) citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed. 1283 (1958); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 104 (1971). In Barnes, a guardian for the wife brought a suit in equity against her alleged husband for support. 346 A.2d at 779. The couple was legally married in Pennsylvania but later moved to Ohio. Id. While they were living in Ohio, the husband obtained a divorce decree from an Ohio 03-0225 CIVIL court of common pleas. Id. at 780. The wife was served with process but did not appear at the hearing or defend herself. Id. Later the wife petitioned the same Ohio court to set aside the divorce because she was mentally incompetent. The court dismissed that petition. Id. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Bames~ afforded the divorce decree, as well as the decree that dismissed the petition to set aside the divorce, full faith and credit. Id. at 781. The court held that the wife failed to show irregularity in either of the proceedings. The court noted that the wife was given notice and had the opportunity to be heard. Id. at 782. In the present case, Jean Keating has demonstrated irregularities in the Guam divorce proceeding. These are strikingly evident from the fact that she had no knowledge of the divorce for over fifteen years, She was never given notice and, thus, did not have the opportunity to be present or be heard. The lack of notice deprived the court ofjurisdiction over the person of the defendant. See Cotvas v. Cotvas, 438 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1981). Thus, the Guam divorce decree was a nullity. Moreover, Jean Keating has done nothing which would estop her from raising this issue. ORDER AND NOW, this /o~ day of November, 2003, the court finds and declares that Jean M. Keating was the wife of Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., on the date of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001, a_nd Jean Keating is, therefore, the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. BY THE COURT, 4 03-0225 CIVIL Susan M. Kadel, Esqmre For the Plaintiff Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm 5 IN THE COURT OF ~N p~.~-%S OF CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, pENNSXLVANIA JF2%NM. KEATING : Plaintiff : :No. 03-225 JUNG SUK KEATING : Defendant. :CIVIL ACTION LAN pRA~CIPE ToW ITHDP~WAPPEARAN~E Please withdraw my Appearance in the above-captioned case. Clau~e A. Lord shielcls, Esquire Attorney ID# 32576 201 West Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 570-366-5175 p~a~CIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please matter. enter my Appearance in the above-captioned Attorney ~% ~7556 201 West/Market Street Orwigsburg, PA 17961 366-2700 CORRECTED COPY JEAN M. KEATING, Plhmiff VS. .lUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-225 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2003, the court finds and declares that Jean M. Keating was the wife of Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., on the date of Mr. Keating's death on October 11, 2001, and Jean Keating is, therefore, the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. BY THE COURT, Susan M. Kadel, Esquire For the Plaintiff Thomas Nickels, Esquire For the Defendant :rim /s/Kevin A. Hess Kevin A. Hess, J. JEAN M. KEATING, Plaintiff VS. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : 03-225 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ; IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER Jean Keating (Jean) seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court stating that she was legally married to Ben Keating (Ben) at the time of his death. The testimony adduced at the hearing of this matter reveals very little dispute as to the facts. Ben and Jean Keating were married October 5, 1946 and lived together in Cumberland County. Ben worked for the United States government and the nature of his work required that he spend most of his time overseas, mostly in South East Asia. When Ben came back to the United States he would stay with Jean but the couple never resided together after 1978. In 1986, Ben filed for divorce here in Cumberland County. Ben and Jean entered into settlement negotiations during which there was dispute regarding the value and distribution of Ben's federal govermnent pension. In 1987, Ben traveled to Guam, a territory of the United States. While in Guam for seven days, Ben obtained a driver's license, opened a bank account, and registered to vote. Meeting the Guam residency requirements, Ben sought and was granted a divorce from Jean Keating. Neither Ben nor the Guam court notified Jean that a divorce had been filed or finalized. Jean had, in fact, no notice or knowledge of that divorce action. 03-0225 CIVIL Two days after the Guam divorce Ben married Jung Suk Keating in Korea. They returned to the United States together and resided in Schuylkill County. They lived openly as man and wife and raised a son. Ben's divorce from Jean was never finalized in this court. In fact, in 1989, Ben's divorce complaint against Jean was dismissed due to lack of docket activity. In 1998, Jean filed for spousal support. As a result, Ben was ordered to pay Jean four hundred dollars ($400) a month. He made those monthly payments until his death on October 11, 2002. Shortly before his death, Ben attempted to negotiate some economic issues ~vith Jean. He also transferred sole interest in their former marital home, where she still resided. After Ben's death, Jean filed an application for death benefits under Ben's Federal Civil Service retirement. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed Jean that she was not entitled to survivor annuity because she was not married to Ben at the time of his death. The OPM provided Jean a copy of the August 18, 1987 divorce decree from the Superior Court of Guam. This was the first knowledge Jean had of the Guam divorce. Jean requested that the OPM reconsider her application for the survivor annuity. Because Jnng Suk Keating was already receiving the survivorship annuity, the OPM told Jean that there were "competing claimants" for Ben's annuity. The OPM advised Jean that a state court could establish the validity of her marriage to Ben at the time of his death. Jean seeks a Declaratory Judgment from this court stating that she was legally married to Ben Keating at the time of his death. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Record, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by the General Laws prescribe the Manner in 2 03-0225 CIVIL which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. The Act of June 26, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 947, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, provides: The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and the seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge or the court that such attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. The defendant correctly observes that this court must accept the divorce decree from the Superior Court of Guam unless it is found to be invalid. It is, however, precisely because the decree is invalid that we will refuse to recognize it. This court is not required to give full faith and credit to a judgment rendered without jurisdiction or without notice and a fair opportunity to be heard; due process of law mandates that a court not recognize such a judgment. Barnes v. Buck, 346 A. 2d 778, 782 (Pa. Super. 1975) citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed. 1283 (1958); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 104 (1971). In Barnes, a guardian for the wife brought a suit in equity against her alleged husband for support. 346 A.2d at 779. The couple was legally married in Pennsylvania but later moved to Ohio. Id. While they were living in Ohio, the husband obtained a divorce decree from an Ohio 03-0225 CIVIL court of common pleas. Id. at 780. The wife was served with process but did not appear at the hearing or defend herself. Id. Later the wife petitioned the same Ohio court to set aside the divorce because she was mentally incompetent. The court dismissed that petition. Id. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Bames~ afforded the divorce decree, as well as the decree that dismissed the petition to set aside the divorce, full faith and credit. Id. at 781. The court held that the wife failed to show irregularity in either of the proceedings. The court noted that the wife was given notice and had the opportunity to be heard. Id. at 782. In the present case, Jean Keating has demonstrated irregularities in the Guam divorce proceeding. These are strikingly evident from the fact that she had no knowledge of the divorce for over fifteen years. She was never given notice and, thus, did not have the opportunity to be present or be heard. The lack of notice deprived the court of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. See Kotvas v. Kotvas, 434 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1981). Thus, the Guam divorce decree was a nullity. Moreover, Jean Keating has done nothing which would estop her from raising this issue. ORDER AND NOW, this I 0th day of November, 2003, the court finds and declares that Jean M. Keating was the wife of Benjamin F. Keating, Jr., on the date of Mr. Keafing's death on October 11, 2001, and Jean Keating is, therefore, the legal widow of Benjamin Keating. BY THE COURT, /s/Kevin A. Hess Kevin A. Hess, J. 4 03-0225 CIVIL Susan M. Kadel, Esquire For the Plaintiff Thomas Nickels, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm lrene M. Bizzoso Deputy Prothonotary Shirley Bailey Chief Clerk Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District January 12, 2005 P.O. Box 624 f-brri$bun!. PA 171U8 717-7137-6181 www.aopc.org Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Jean M. Keating, Respondent v. Jung Suk Keating, Petitioner Superior Docket Number - 1936 MDA 2003 Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 03-225 No. 743 MAL 2004 Appeal Docket No.: Date Petition for Allowance of Appeal Filed: August 16. 2004 Disposition: Order Denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal Date: January 12, 2005 Reargument/Reconsideration Disposition: Reargument/Reconsideration Disposition Date: /als IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT JEAN M. KEATING, No. 743 MAL 2004 Respondent Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of th'3 Superior Court v. JUNG SUK KEATING, Petitioner ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 1ih day of January, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby DENIED. TRUE & CORRECT COPY ATTEST: JAN 1 2 2005 ~~ ~,~-~~ NE M. BIZZOSO, E RE EPUTY PROTHONOTARY C) U'-i "",- c',. t'"0 \ (~;:; -..,..1 \.>- 1_(" <:) .J'~ l_'~' .::~:~~ c-.\ J.A25028/04 2004 PA Super 277 JEAN M. KEATING, Appellee IN THE: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. b1 03-clJf ~ JUNG SUK KEATING, Appellant No. 1936 MDA 2003 Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2003 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil at No. 03-225 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, GANTMAN, and BECK, J.J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, J: FILED: July 16, 2004 ~ 1 Appellant, Jung Suk Keating ("Jung Suk") challenges the trial court's order entering declaratory judgment in favor of Appellee, Jean M. Keating ("Jean"). Specifically, Jung Suk contests the court's finding that Jean was the legal wife of the decedent, Benjamin F. Keating, Jr. ("Ben"), at the time of his death. We hold the trial court properly determined that Jean was the legal wife of Ben at the time of his death, because she had no notice or opportunity to be heard in the Guam divorce proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm. ~ 2 The trial court's opinion sets forth the relevant facts of this case as follows: Ben and Jean Keating were married October 5, 1946 and lived together in Cumberland County. Ben worked for the United States government and the nature of his work required that he spend most of his time overseas, mostly in South East Asia. When Ben J.A25028j04 came back to the United States he would stay with Jean but the couple never resided together after 1978. In 1986, Ben filed for divorce here in Cumberland County. Ben and Jean entered into settlement negotiations during which there was dispute regarding the value and distribution of Ben's federal government pension. In 1987, Ben traveled to Guam, a territory of the United States. While in Guam for seven days, Ben obtained a driver's license, opened a bank account, and registered to vote. Meeting the Guam residency requirements, Ben sought and was granted a divorce from Jean Keating. Neither Ben nor the Guam court notified Jean that a divorce had been filed or f'inalized. Jean had, in fact, no notice or knowledge of that divorce action. Two days after the Guam divorce Ben married Jung Suk Keating in Korea. They returned to the United States together and resided in Schuylkill County. They lived openly as man and wife and raised a son. Ben's divorce from Jean was never finalized in this court. In fact, in 1989, Ben's divorce complaint against Jean was dismissed due to lack of docket activity. In 19[89], Jean filed for spousal support. As a result, Ben was ordered to pay Jean four hundred dollars ($400) a month. He made those monthly payments until his death on October 11, 2001. Shortly before his death, Ben attempted to negotiate some economic issues with Jean. He also transferred sole interest in their former marital home, where she still resided. After Ben's death, Jean filed an application for death benefits under Ben's Federal Civil Service retirement. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed Jean that she was not entitled to survivor annuity because she was not married to Ben at the time of his death. The OPM provided Jean a copy of the August 18, 1987 divorce decree from the Superior Court of Guam. - 2 - J.A25028j04 This was the first knowledge Jean had of the Guam divorce. Jean requested that the OPM reconsider her application for the survivor annuity. Because Jung Suk Keating was already receiving the survivorship annuity, the OPM told Jean that there were "competing claimants" for Ben's annuity. The OPM advised Jean that a state court could establish the validity of her marriage to Ben at the time of his death. Jean [sought] a Declaratory Judgment from [the trial court] stating that she was legally married to Ben Keating at the time of his death. (Trial Court Opinion, filed November 10, 2003, at 2-3). Following an evidentiary hearing,l the trial court declared Jean as Ben's legal widow. The court reasoned the Guam divorce was a nullity, because Jean had no notice or opportunity to be heard at the Guam divorce proceedings. Moreover, the trial court held Jean had done nothing to estop her from challenging the divorce decree. By order dated November 10, 2003, the court entered declaratory judgment in favor of Jean. Jung Suk filed this timely appeal. ~ 3 Jung Suk presents the following issues for our review: 1 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held a pre-trial order that declares the rights of the parties is a final and iimmediately appealable order. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wickett, 563 Pa. 595, 763 A.2d 813 (2000); 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9 7532. However, where a declaratory judgment is entered after a jury or non-jury trial, post-trial motions must be filed to preserve issues for appellate review. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pinkerton, 574 A.2d 333, 830 A.2d 958 (2003). The proceedings in the instant case were in the nature of a pre-trial evidentiary hearing only. Therefore, the order entering declaratory judgment was immediately appealable, and post-trial motions were not necessary to preserve the issues for appellate review. - 3 - J.A25028/04 IS A DIVORCE DECREE ISSUED BY GUAM COURT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BY THE PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL COURT WHEN JURISDICTION IS NOT DISPROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE' PRESENTED BY THE PERSON ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF THE DECREE? WHEN [A SPOUSE] IN A GUAM DIVORCE PROCEEDING IS NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN THAT PROCEEDING MAY THE SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOR OF THE PARTIES ESTOP [THAT SPOUSE] FROM COLLATERALLY ATTACKING THE GUAM DIVORCE DECREE? (Jung Suk's Brief at 3). ~ 4 This appeal is subject to the following principles: Our standard of review in a declaratory judgment action is limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court if the court's determination is supported by the evidence. Additionally, [we] will review the decision of the [trial] court as we would a decree in equity and set aside the factual conclusions of that court only where they are not supported by adequate evidence. The application of the law, however, is always subject to our review. Erie Ins. Exchange v. Muff, _ A.2d _, __,2004 PA Super 177, ~ 7 (filed May 24, 2004) (internal citations omitted). ~ 5 Jung Suk argues the Guam divorce decree is entitled to full faith and credit. Ben fulfilled the requirements for residency in Guam, therefore the Guam court had jurisdiction to enter the divorce decree. - 4 - J.A25028j04 Thus, the Guam divorce decree is valid on its face, and must be recognized in Pennsylvania. ~ 6 Jung Suk also contends Jean is estopped from challenging the validity of the Guam divorce decree. She maintains Jean was economically enriched relative to the decree, receiving spousal support and Ben's interest in the marital home. .Accordingly, Jung Suk concludes Jean constructively recognized the Guam divorce decree and cannot collaterally attack it. ~ 7 Jean argues that the Guam divorce decree cannot be afforded full faith and credit by Pennsylvania, because the decree was entered without giving her notice or an opportunity to be heard. As such, Jean was Ben's legal wife at the time of his death and is now his legal widow. Moreover, Jean argues she cannot be equitably estopped from collaterally attacking the Guam divorce decree, because she at no time acknowledged, relied upon, or benefited from the Guam divorce. We agree. ~ 8 A divorce decree is presumptively valid and is a conclusive adjudication of everything involved therein except the jurisdictional facts on which it is founded. Stambaugh v. Stambaugh, 458 Pa. 147, 151, 329 A.2d 483, 485 (1974). In many cases, the bona fide domicile is the essential jurisdictional fact necessary to give any decree extraterritorial effect. Id. The party attacking the divorce - 5 - J.A25028j04 decree has the burden to show that jurisdiction was lacking when the decree was entered. Id. ~ 9 A divorce granted in one jurisdiction is enforceable in another jurisdiction through the Full Faith and Credit: clause of the United States Constitution. Sarnes v. Such, 464 Pa. 357, 346 A.2d 778 (1975). The Full Faith and Credit clause is found in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides in relevant part: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by the general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. IV, 9 1. Although Article IV, Section 1 provides for full faith and credit to valid judgments of other states and territories, the Full Faith and Credit clause does not require a court to recognize a judgment rendered without jurisdiction or without notice and fair opportunity to be heard. Sarnes" supra; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws 9 104 (1971) (stating: "A judgment rendered without judicial jurisdiction or without adequate notice or adequate opportunity to be heard will not be recognized or enforced in other states"). In other words, "A state cannot exercise through its courts judicial jurisdiction over the status of a person unless a method of notification is employed which is reasonably calculated to give [her] knowledge of the attempted exercise and an opportunity to be heard." - 6 - J.A25028j04 Commonwealth v. Cluster, 21 A.2d 524, 527 (1941) (addressing aspects of divorce law) (citing Restatement Conflict of Laws 9 109 (1934)). ~ 10 Moreover, the court must focus on all of the surrounding circumstances when it considers whether to estop a spouse from challenging the validity of a foreign divorce decree. Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 579 A.2d 377, 381 (Pa.Super. 1990), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 611, 590 A.2d 297 (1991). In addition to scrutinizing the procurement of the divorce, the court looks at the conduct of the parties thereafter and the effect on others of a declaration of the invalidity of the divorce. Id. ~ 11 Instantly, the trial court reasoned: [Jung Suk] correctly observes that this court must accept the divorce decree from the Superior Court of Guam unless it is found to be invalid. It is, however, precisely because the decree is invalid that we will refuse to recognize it. This court is not required to give full faith and credit to a judgment rendered without jurisdiction or without notice and a fair opportunity to be heard; due process of law mandates that a court not recoflnize such a judgment. (Trial Court Opinion, filed November 10, 2003, at 3) (internal citations omitted). We agree. Jung Suk improperly focuses on issues of domicile. Although residency is a requirement, and domicile is an essential jurisdictional fact, when determining jurisdiction, Jung Suk fails to recognize that the parties to a divorce decree must also be - 7 - J.A25028j04 afforded due process rights. There is no evidence to suggest Jean had any notice of the Guam divorce proceedings. As the trial court stated: Jean Keating has demonstrated irregularities in the Guam divorce proceedings. These are strikingly evident from the fact that she had no knowledge of the divorce for over fifteen years. She was never given notice and, thus, did not have an opportunity to be present or be heard. The liack of notice deprived the court of jurisdiction over the person of [of Jean] [in the divorce proceeding]. Thus, the Guam divorce decree was a nullity. ~1oreover, Jean Keating has done nothing which would estop her from raising this issue. (Id. at 4). ~ 12 Moreover, Jung Suk has provided no persuasive evidence to suggest that Jean accepted spousal support or Ben's interest in the marital home as a result of the Guam divorce. Any economic benefit she received was just as likely obtained pursuant to the parties' separation. ~ 13 The single Pennsylvania case analogous to the present case is Ecker v. Ecker, 36 Pa. D &c. 4th 104 (Allegheny Cty. 1997), affirmed, 701 A.2d 786 (1997), appeal denied, 553 PC!. 689, 717 A.2d 1028 (1998). In Ecker, the trial court found the first wife was estopped from collaterally attacking the foreign divorce decree, because she had accepted payment in consideration for signing a settlement agreement that recognized the validity of the foreign divorce. Id. However, Ecker is distinguishable here, because we have no written settlement - 8 - J.A25028j04 agreement or evidence to suggest that Jean accepted the spousal support or property interest in acquiescence to the Guam divorce decree. Therefore, Jean is not estopped from attacking its validity. ~ 14 For the aforementioned reasons, we hold the trial court properly determined Jean was the legal wife of Ben at the time of his death, because she had no notice or opportunity to be heard in the Guam divorce proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the court's order entering declaratory judgment in favor of Jean. ~ 15 Order affirmed. - 9 -