In re Marriage of DiFiglio
2016 IL App (3d) 160037
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Stanislawa filed for dissolution of marriage from James; James executed an Illinois statutory short-form power of attorney naming David Malmstedt as attorney-in-fact.
- James sold Buchunter Transport, an Illinois corporation; Malmstedt participated in the sale and received the sale proceeds.
- Stanislawa petitioned to join Malmstedt as a third party, alleging he received and dispensed over $575,000 of marital property and owed fiduciary duties to the marital estate.
- Malmstedt moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming California residency and invoking the fiduciary-shield doctrine.
- Trial court denied the motion, finding Malmstedt acquired control of marital assets in Illinois; Malmstedt sought leave to appeal and the appellate court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois courts have personal jurisdiction over nonresident Malmstedt under the long-arm statute | Stanislawa: jurisdiction exists under 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(10) and (a)(11) because Malmstedt acquired control of marital assets in Illinois and breached fiduciary duties here | Malmstedt: resident of California; committed no acts submitting him to Illinois jurisdiction; fiduciary-shield bars jurisdiction for acts as POA | Held: Yes. Jurisdiction under §2‑209(a)(10) because he acquired possession/control of assets in Illinois and the claim arises from that acquisition |
| Whether asserting jurisdiction comports with due process (minimum contacts) | Stanislawa: Malmstedt traveled to Illinois for the sale and court, communicated regularly with Illinois resident James, and acted under an Illinois-executed power of attorney | Malmstedt: contacts insufficient; appearance in Illinois was incidental and limited to assisting James | Held: Yes. Malmstedt had sufficient minimum contacts (trips to Illinois, communications, Illinois power of attorney) to satisfy due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Nesby v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 346 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2004) (standard of de novo review for denial of motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds)
- Poplar Grove State Bank v. Powers, 218 Ill. App. 3d 509 (1991) (plaintiff bears burden to show prima facie basis for jurisdiction over nonresident)
- Mandalay Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Hoffman, 141 Ill. App. 3d 891 (1986) (prima facie showing and liberal construction in favor of jurisdictional facts)
- Rollins v. Ellwood, 141 Ill. 2d 244 (1990) (two-part test: long-arm statute satisfied and due process minimum contacts)
- CGE Ford Heights, L.L.C. v. Miller, 306 Ill. App. 3d 431 (1999) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- Norton v. Bridges, 712 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (supporting authority that jurisdiction may be proper where defendant took control of in‑state assets)
- Brown v. Refuel America, Inc., 652 S.E.2d 389 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (analogous long-arm reasoning where defendant accepted in‑state checks and plaintiff’s claim arose from in‑state assets)