987 N.E.2d 223
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mother and father were never married; they lived in Florida and the child was born there in July 2006.
- Mother moved to Massachusetts alleging domestic violence by the Florida-resident father, who was the putative father.
- Massachusetts Probate Court issued a paternity judgment granting father as the child’s father, with sole custody to mother, and orders for retroactive child support and uninsured medical expenses.
- Father was served but did not appear before the judgment; contempt proceedings were initiated against him, and he later sought Rule 60(b)(4) relief alleging lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Probate Court denied the Rule 60(b)(4) motion, relying on waiver since father did not appear and his modifications followed judgment.
- Father appeals, arguing absence of personal jurisdiction; mother contends either valid jurisdiction under UIFSA or waiver; record is incomplete and the court remands for jurisdiction-specific findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was lack of personal jurisdiction waived by father’s conduct? | Mother argues waiver applies due to service and later actions. | Father argues lack of personal jurisdiction was preserved and not waived by participation. | Waiver did not apply; court must determine jurisdiction on remand. |
| Does UIFSA allow personal jurisdiction over the nonresident father in a paternity/support action where the child resides in Massachusetts as a result of the defendant’s acts? | Mother relies on UIFSA, contending Florida-based abuse forced relocation to Massachusetts, triggering jurisdiction. | Father contends no clear basis under UIFSA or Massachusetts long-arm statute given sparse record. | Remanded to determine statutory authority and due process under UIFSA. |
| Can a paternity judgment imposing affirmative obligations be entered without personal jurisdiction over the defendant? | Mother seeks support and obligations despite possible lack of personal jurisdiction. | Father maintains lack of jurisdiction prevents such affirmative obligations. | Court must assess whether the judgment included an affirmative obligation; void if absent jurisdiction. |
| Should the order be vacated under Mass. Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) for voidness? | Mother argues denial of 60(b)(4) was proper. | Father contends the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction and merits relief. | Order reversing the denial is affirmed and remanded for factual jurisdiction findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caplan v. Donovan, 450 Mass. 463 (2008) (limits on jurisdictional reach; status-based orders allowed without full PJ)
- Lamarche v. Lussier, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 887 (2006) (waiver and nonwaiver of PJ; use in evaluating pre- and post-judgment actions)
- Windsor v. Windsor, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 650 (1998) (flight from abuse and UIFSA applicability in forum analysis)
- R. Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio, 540 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008) (non-appearing defendant may vacate default judgments under Rule 60(b)(4))
- Kolko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) (constitutional limits on in-state obligations without PJ)
- Cepeda v. Kass, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 732 (2004) (statutory authority and due process in PJ determinations)
- Colley v. Benson, Young & Downs Ins. Agency, Inc., 42 Mass. App. Ct. 527 (1997) (waiver and lack of PJ in Massachusetts appeals)