Fox v. Fox, 106 A.3d 919

plaintiff Neal Fox is Vermont resident; defendant Eugene Fox is New Hampshire resident and adoptive uncle by virtue of defendant’s adoption by plaintiff’s brother.
Incident occurred in New Hampshire; plaintiff was assaulted after a probate hearing in Manchester, NH, during which defendant followed plaintiff to his car and attacked him.
Plaintiff sought a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order in Windsor Superior Court (Vt. Family Division); a temporary RFA was issued and extended.
Defendant challenged personal jurisdiction and argued the uncle-nephew relationship does not qualify as “family” under 15 V.S.A. § 1102; trial court rejected this and proceeded toward a final RFA order.
Final RFA order prohibited defendant from 300 feet of plaintiff’s person, home, vehicle, or workplace, and found stalking under 12 V.S.A. § 5131(6).
New Hampshire criminal case against defendant resulted in a suspended sentence with no-contact conditions; issues include whether Vermont may enter a final order without personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vermont had personal jurisdiction to issue a final RFA order	Fox argues Vermont lacked minimum contacts	Fox has no Vermont contacts; RFA requires no extraterritorial jurisdiction	Final RFA order cannot be issued without personal jurisdiction
Whether the uncle-nephew relationship qualifies as “family” for RFA	Relationship supports protections under 15 V.S.A. § 1102	Family definition should not extend to nonresidents without contacts	Issue not reached; court treats jurisdiction as fatal to final order
Whether the evidence supports stalking finding for a final order	Stalking occurred via license-plate noting and subsequent behavior	No Vermont-stalking activity found; no evidence of stalking conduct in Vermont	Court did not reach stalking on basis of lack of jurisdiction; reversed on jurisdiction ground
Whether a final RFA order can be valid without personal jurisdiction	Final order should be permissible under statutory plan	Constitutional due process requires jurisdiction for final orders	Court rejects blanket exemption; final order requires personal jurisdiction

Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3 (Iowa 2001) (protective order without personal jurisdiction in some status-based judgments)
Shah v. Shah, 875 A.2d 931 (N.J. 2005) (temporary prohibitory relief may be allowed without personal jurisdiction; final relief not permissible)
Spencer v. Spencer, 191 S.W.3d 14 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishes prohibitory vs. affirmative orders in absence of PJ)
Caplan v. Donovan, 879 N.E.2d 117 (Mass. 2008) (status-based rationale; prohibitory relief limit without PJ)
Hemenway v. Hemenway, 992 A.2d 575 (N.H. 2010) (excludes final orders without PJ; aligns with prohibitory/affirmative distinction)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for jurisdiction)
Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) (due process limits on judgments affecting nonresidents)
Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 7 cmt. a () (distinguishes status adjudications from enforcement of liability)