18 A.3d 491
R.I.2011Background
- Barbara filed a Rhode Island divorce complaint on May 1, 2009 in Newport County Family Court.
- Barbara was a Rhode Island domiciled inhabitant for at least one year before filing and resided in RI with their minor child.
- Robert did not reside in Rhode Island at filing, having relocated to New Jersey; he was served in New Jersey on May 14, 2009.
- After discovery, it was learned the Newport residence had been sold in September 2009 and Barbara moved to Pennsylvania.
- The Family Court, sua sponte, questioned its subject‑matter jurisdiction when neither party resided in RI.
- The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; on appeal, the issue was whether jurisdiction remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the filing court have subject‑matter jurisdiction at filing? | Rogers contends RI was proper under § 15‑5‑12(a) at filing. | Rogers contends relocation defeats jurisdiction. | Yes; jurisdiction attached at filing despite later relocation. |
| Does relocation to another state after filing divest jurisdiction? | Barbara's relocation did not terminate jurisdiction because it was already invoked. | Relocation would divest the court of jurisdiction. | No; relocation does not divest the court's jurisdiction once properly invoked. |
| Effect of § 15‑5‑12(a) on timing of domicile requirement for jurisdiction? | Domicile and residency are assessed at filing, not at decree. | Domicile must persist through proceedings to sustain jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction is established at filing; change of domicile during proceedings does not defeat it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Astors' Beechwood v. People Coal Co., 659 A.2d 1109 (R.I. 1995) (once invoked, subject-matter jurisdiction is rarely divested)
- Jewell v. Jewell, 751 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2000) (estoppel against forum shopping after filing)
- Brennan v. Kirby, 529 A.2d 633 (R.I. 1987) (absurd results prevented; statutory purpose)
- Waterman v. Caprio, 983 A.2d 841 (R.I. 2009) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation)
- Iselin v. Retirement Bd. of the Emp. Retirement Sys. of Rhode Island, 943 A.2d 1045 (R.I. 2008) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2009) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Paolino v. Paolino, 420 A.2d 830 (R.I. 1980) (jurisdiction and statutory interpretation principles)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy, 45 R.I. 367 (1923) (domicile requires actual abode and intent to stay)