Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-225 CivilJEAN M. KEAT1NG, Plaintiff VS. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-225 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 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 3 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 Barnes, 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 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 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, Kevin A. Hess, J. 4 03-0225 CIVIL Susan M. Kadel, Esquire For the Plaintiff Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm JEAN M. KEAT1NG, Plaimiff VS. JUNG SUK KEATING, Defendam AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-225 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER 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 Plaimiff Claude A. Lord Shields, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.