Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0372 CivilCANDACE S. BEIGHT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION ROGER L. HOSFELT, : Defendant : NO. 372 SUPPORT 1993 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO 'PA. R.A.P. 1925 Oler, J., .December 12, 1995. This is a child support case which originated in Ohio and is proceeding in Pennsylvania pursuant to the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.~ Defendant father has appealed to the Superior Court from this court's acceptance of an arrearage figure on the Ohio order of $24,453.00.2 The basic premise of Defendant's appeal is that the Ohio court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.3 The present opinion in support of this court's acceptance of the Ohio arrearages is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Procedural history. In 1988 Plaintiff Candace S. Harakal (now Beight) commenced an action for child support against Defendant Roger L. Hosfelt in the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, for the support of the parties' child, Heidi Ann Harakal.4 ~ Act of October 30, 1985, P.L. 264, ~1, 23 Pa. C.S. ~4501 et seq. 2 Notice of Appeal, filed October 20, 1995. 3 See Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal, filed November 6, 1995. 4 Defendant's Exhibit 1. 372 SUPPORT 1993 However, no support order was entered at that time, because service of process upon Defendant had not been accomplished.~ On August 13, 1992, Plaintiff succeeded in having Defendant personally served in the Ohio action through a private investigator.6 Following a hearing, an order was entered by the Mahoning County court directing Defendant to pay child support in the amount of $429.00 per month, plus $121.00 per month on $17,589.00 in accumulated arrearages.? On or about December 29, 1993, Plaintiff filed a uniform support petition .for establishment in Pennsylvania of a RURESA child support order and collection of Ohio arrearages, then totaling over $24,000.00. The appropriateness of the petition was certified by the Honorable James M. McNally of the Mahoning County court on February 2, 1994, and the certification and petition were forwarded to the Pennsylvania Central Registry, and then filed with the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office on March 10, 1994.8 Id. N.T. 3-4 (September 28, 1995). ? Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. See Act of October 30, 1995, P.L. 264, ~1, 23 Pa. C.S. §4514 (duty of initiating court). 2 372 SUPPORT 1993 The case was docketed at No. 372 Support 1993 in this court.9 Following a domestic relations office conference, a recommended order against Defendant was issued by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley on May 18, 1994, providing for (1) payments of $350.00 per month for child support, plus $10 per month for Pennsylvania arrearages that had accrued, and (2) deferral of a computation of the Ohio arrearages for six months, during which time Defendant was to address the matter in Ohio. Defendant appealed this recommended order. On August 8, 1995, Judge Bayley issued an order pursuant to the parties' agreement (1) dismissing Defendant's appeal as to the $350.00 per month support figure, (2) directing Defendant to immediately pay accrued Pennsylvania arrearages of $2,850.00, and (3) deferring consideration of the amount of Ohio arrearages for another four months "while Defendant pursue[d] his contest of that amount in the appropriate court in the State of Ohio." The issue of the amount of Ohio arrearages was apparently still unresolved by March 30, 1995, at which time a recommended order of court was issued by Judge Bayley, accepting for 9 See id., 23 Pa. C.S. S4518 (duty of the court and officials of Commonwealth as responding state). An examination of the domestic relations office file in this case suggests that it bears a 1993 docket number because of an earlier petition filed by Plaintiff, which was returned to the Mahoning County Child Support Enforcement Agency because of several procedural defects and which has apparently been superseded by the petition referred to in the text. 3 372 SUPPORT 1993 registration the Ohio arrearages in excess of $24,000.00, and providing for additional monthly payments of $200.00 on those arrearages. Defendant appealed from this recommended order. A hearing on Defendant's appeal was held by the writer of this opinion on July 31, 1995, and September 28, 1995. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued the following order, which is presently the subject of Defendant's appeal to the Superior Court: AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 1995, upon consideration of the Defendant's appeal from the Order dated March 30, 1995, and issued by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, and following hearings on two separate days, the Defendant's appeal is denied, except that the figure of $24,717.00 in arrearages contained in Judge Bayley's order is reduced to $24,453.00.[~°] In all other respects, the Order of March 30, 1995, issued by Judge Bayley shall remain in full force and effect. The basis for Defendant's appeal to the Superior Court from this order is expressed in Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal as follows: 1. The Ohio support order, upon which the judgment for arrearages against Defendant, Roger L. Hosfelt, was predicated, is void because the Ohio Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and, therefore, the Ohio Support order arrearages are unenforceable in Pennsylvania. ~0 Plaintiff's counsel stipulated that the amount should be so reduced. N.T. 37 (September 28, 1995). 4 372 SUPPORT 1993 2. Defendant, Roger L. Hosfelt's connections with the forum state, Ohio, were and are too insubstantial to support a finding of in personam jurisdiction in Ohio on a constitutional level. 3. The Ohio proceeding to establish child support was commenced by a motion for implementation of child support filed July 20, 1992. The Ohio court lacked power to impose any obligation upon Defendant to pay child support prior to the filing of said motion. Therefore, the arrearage total is incorrect and unenforceable, since it includes sums prior to July 20 of 1992, and in fact imposes support from the date of April 01, 1989. The total of arrearages must be reduced by the approximate amount of $17,589.00, which sum represents support imposed prior to August 31, 1992.~ It must be noted that the third issue contained in Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal was not an issue argued in this court. See N.T. 3-5 (July 31, 1995); N.T. 31-34 (September 28, 1995); Defendant's Brief in Support of a Finding of No jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Statement of facts. Evidence adduced at the hearing in this matter, or otherwise appearing in the record, tended to show the following: The Defendant, Roger L. Hosfelt, is an adult individual, currently residing at 115 Southside Drive, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.~2 The Plaintiff, Candace S. (Harakal) Beight, is an adult individual, currently residing at 429 ~ Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal, filed November 6, 1995. ~2 N.T. 5 (July 31, 1995). 5 372 SUPPORT 1993 Creed Street, Struthers, Mahoning county, Ohio.~3 Defendant has lived at the aforesaid Cumberland County residence since 1981, and has been employed or engaged as an over- the-road truck driver for twenty-two years.TM While so employed, Defendant met the Plaintiff in 1981 in Youngstown, Ohio, where she worked as a waitress.~s The parties became romantically involved, and engaged in sexual relations a number of times in Ohio and in Pennsylvania in 1981.~6 A child was born of this relationship, Heidi Ann Harakal, on February 15, 1982.~7 Plaintiff commenced an action for child support against Defendant in 1988 in Ohio, but personal jurisdiction was not initially obtained over Defendant.~8 Although Defendant testified that he was never served in the Ohio action,~9 this court found credible the testimony of Plaintiff's witnesses that he was eventually personally served at his residence in Pennsylvania on ~3 N.T. 8 (July 31, 1995); Uniform Support Petition (general testimony for Uresa section). N.T. 6 (July 31, 1995). N.T. 17-19 (July 31, 1995). N.T. 7, 17-19 (July 31, 1995). N.T. 7, 31 (July 31, 1995). See notes 4-5 supra and accompanying text. N.T. 10, 21-22 (July 31, 1995). 6 372 SUPPORT 1993 August 13, 1992.20 A hearing was held in Mahoning County on September 2, 1992.2~ The Defendant chose not to appear at the hearing.2~ As a result of the hearing, an order and findings were entered by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.~3 Among the court's specific findings of fact was the following: Obligor was properly served with a copy of the Motion, Notice and Summons and this Court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction.24 Defendant was directed by the Ohio court to pay the sum of $429.00 per month in child support, plus $121.00 per month on arrearages of $17,589.00 accumulated since 1989.2s Defendant never made a payment on the Ohio order.~6 As noted in the foregoing procedural history, Defendant has appealed this court's order of September 28, 1995, accepting the Ohio arrearages. In this regard, he argued before this court that the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction over him because of (1) an absence of notice N.T. 3-4, 15-16 (September 28, 1995). Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. 22 Id. 23 Id. Id. Id. Uniform Support Petition (general testimony for URESA section). 7 372 SUPPORT 1993 and (2) an absence of minimum contacts.27 DISCUSSION Section 1 of Article IV of the United Stated Constitution provides as follows: 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 general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.28 As a general rule, child support arrearages are to be accorded full faith and credit. Commonwealth ex rel. Brendel v. Brendel, 429 Pa. Super. 319, 322 n.3, 632 A.2d 876, 878 n.3 (1993); Silverstein v. Silverstein, 246 Pa. Super. 503, 507, 371 A.2d 948, 950-51 (1977). The constitutional obligation to accord a foreign judgment full faith and credit does not exist where the sister state did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant or did not afford him or her due process of law. Commonwealth Capital Funding, Inc. v. Franklin Square Hospital, 423 Pa. Super. 149, 154, 620 A.2d 1154, 27 N.T. 31-34 (September 28, 1995); Defendant's Brief in Support of a Finding of No Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. 28 The United States Congress has reinforced this constitutional provision by providing that the appropriate authorities of each state are to enforce another state's child support order according to its terms, where the court issuing the order had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and where a reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard were given to the contestants. Act of October 22, 1994, P.L. 103-383, S3(a), 108 Stat. 4064, 28 U.S.C. S 1738B (1995 Supp.). 8 372 SUPPORT 1993 1156 (1993). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment operates as a limitation on the jurisdiction of state courts to enter judgments affecting rights and interests of nonresident defendants. It has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be entered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The existence of personal jurisdiction, in turn, depends upon the presence of reasonable notice to the defendant that an action has been brought ... and a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum State as to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum. Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S. Ct. 1690, __, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132, 140-41 (1978) (citations omitted); see Rogers v. Rogers, 295 Pa. Super. 160, 166, 441 A.2d 398, 401 (1982). The sufficiency of connection of a defendant with a forum state is often analyzed on the basis of "minimum contacts." In this regard, it is said that the standard regarding minimum contacts is one of reasonableness. There must be sufficient connection between the defendant in a case and the forum state as to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum; an essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant's activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him to conduct his defense in the forum state. Carney v. Dahlmann, 425 Pa. Super. 163, 166-67, 624 A.2d 197, 199 (1993) (citations omitted). 9 372 SUPPORT 1993 "When a cause of action arises from the forum-related activities of the [defendant], the constitutional analysis requires that the [defendant] have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to provide [him or her] with a reasonable anticipation of beinq hauled into court." Maleski v. DP Realty Trust, Pa. Commw. , , 653 A.2d 54, 62 (1994) (emphasis added). In child support cases, as in other types of cases, the United States Supreme Court has "recognize[d] that [a] determination [as to personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant] is one in which few answers will be written 'in black and white. The greys are dominant and even among them the shades are innumerable.'" Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 92, 96 S. Ct. 1690, , 56 L. Ed. 2d 132, 141 (1982), quoting Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 545, 68 S. Ct. 1213, __, 92 L. Ed. 1561, 1566 (1948). Under Ohio law, a court may obtain personal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3111-06 of the Uniform Parentage Act, which states in relevant part that [a] person who has sexual intercourse in [Ohio] submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of [Ohio] as to an action brought under sections 3111.01 to 3111.19 of the Revised Code [Section 3111.15 pertains to child support] with respect to a child who may have been conceived by that act of intercourse. In addition to any other method provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure, personal jurisdiction may be acquired by personal service of summons outside this state .... 10 372 SUPPORT 1993 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. S3111.06 (Anderson 1994); see State ex rel. Stone v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, 14 Ohio St. 3d 32, 470 N.E.2d 899 (1984); cf. Hudgins v. Hudgins, 80 Ohio App. 3d 707, 610 N.E.2d 582 (1992). In the present case, with respect to the issue of notice to Defendant of the Ohio action, the matter has been decided adversely to Defendant on the basis of credibility. See text accompanying notes 19-20 supra. With respect to the issue of sufficiency of connection of Defendant with Ohio, it is believed that Defendant's engagement in a sexual relationship in Ohio with an Ohio resident, which liaison resulted in the birth of a child who resided with her mother in Ohio and whom Defendant has failed to support, represented "sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state [on the part of Defendant] to provide [him] with a reasonable anticipation of being hauled into court" in Ohio for support. There is, in this case, considerably more than the mere residency of the object of support in the forum state.29 Finally, with respect to Defendant's challenge on appeal to the amount of the arrearages assigned by the Ohio court, it has been previously noted that this court does not regard the matter as having been properly preserved. See Mutual Industries, Inc. v. 2~ Cf. Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S. Ct. 1690, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1978). 11 372 SUPPORT 1993 Weinberg, 423 Pa. Super. 328, 621 A.2d 140 (1993) (waiver of matters on appeal not raised below).3° On the merits, it would appear that the amount of a judgment as determined in a proceeding where the court had personal jurisdiction over the obligor is the type of judicial resolution of an issue intended to be encompassed by the full faith and credit clause. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is believed that this court's acceptance of the Ohio arrearages was in accordance with the law and the evidence. Michael R. Rundle, Esq. 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Sally J. Winder, Esq. 701 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Attorney for Defendant The Honorable James M. McNally Judge, Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas 300 East Scott Street Youngstown, OH 44505 Domestic Relations Office 13 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 :rc See text following note 11 supra. 12