Hornblower v. Hornblower
94 A.3d 1218
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- The Hornblowers divorced in Connecticut in 2005; the Superior Court ordered modifiable alimony payable by John.
- Both parties later moved out of Connecticut (Mildred to Georgia; John to Colorado).
- John filed a postjudgment motion to modify alimony in Connecticut in October 2012.
- Mildred moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-46 and 46b-212d(a), and the trial court granted the dismissal.
- John appealed, arguing those statutory provisions do not govern postjudgment modification of an existing spousal support order and that Connecticut retains personal jurisdiction under UIFSA principles and § 46b-212d(c).
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding Connecticut courts retain personal jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order that they issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut courts have personal jurisdiction to adjudicate a postjudgment motion to modify alimony after the payee moved out of state | Hornblower: §§ 46b-46 and 46b-212d(a) do not permit jurisdiction over a nonresident in this context, so the court lacked personal jurisdiction | Hornblower (defendant): Those statutes apply to initial establishment/enforcement; § 46b-212d(c) and UIFSA principles preserve personal jurisdiction for the issuing tribunal to modify support orders despite a party’s move | Court: Reversed dismissal — issuing Connecticut tribunal retains personal jurisdiction to modify its spousal support order under UIFSA principles and § 46b-212d(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978) (personal jurisdiction required for domestic relations orders)
- Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1957) (jurisdictional principles in family law matters)
- Cashman v. Cashman, 41 Conn. App. 382 (1996) (doctrine of continuing personal jurisdiction in dissolution proceedings)
- Myrtle Mews Assn., Inc. v. Bordes, 125 Conn. App. 12 (2010) (standard of review for personal jurisdiction challenges)
- Fairchild Heights Residents Assn., Inc. v. Fairchild Heights, Inc., 310 Conn. 797 (2014) (statutory interpretation; plenary review of legal questions)