Collins v. CollinsCollins v. Collins
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Russell E. Collins, was serving in the United States military in Germany when he married defendant-appellee, Brigitte M.L. Collins, a German citizen, on April 8, 1983. The parties separated in 1999. Russell Collins moved to Ohio and purchased a home. Brigitte Collins remained in Germany.
{¶ 2} Russell Collins filed a complaint for divorce on September 16, 2002, in the Domestic Relations Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint included a request for certified mail service upon Brigitte Collins in Germany. The certified mail receipt was returned and filed October 15, 2002. By letter dated November 1, 2002, Brigitte Collins’s German counsel notified Russell Collins’s counsel that the attempt to serve Brigitte Collins was improper pursuant to the Hague Convention on Service of Process Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“the Hague Convention”).
{¶ 3} In her decision of November 15, 2002, the magistrate stated, “Wife was served by certified international mail on September 17, 2002. The parties have not lived in a marital relationship in the state of Ohio and this court has no personal jurisdiction over wife.” The magistrate’s decision set forth the duration of the marriage, distributed real and personal property, and addressed the issues of spousal support and Russell Collins’s military pension. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on January 17, 2003. A decree of divorce was entered February 4, 2003. The decree stated that Russell Collins was an Ohio resident and that “service of process [on Brigitte Collins] was made according to law or waived.”
{¶ 4} On August 8, 2003, Brigitte Collins filed a
{¶ 5} The first assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in granting Brigitte Collins’s
{¶ 6} For a court to acquire personal jurisdiction, there must be a proper service of summons or an entry of appearance, and a judgment entered without proper service or an entry of appearance is void. See
State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell
(1990),
{¶ 7} The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty “intended to provide a simpler way to serve process abroad, to assure that defendants sued in foreign jurisdictions w[ill] receive actual and timely notice of suit, and to facilitate proof of service abroad.”
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk
(1988),
{¶ 8} Under the terms of the Hague Convention, registered mail service is insufficient service of process on citizens of nations that are signatories. See id.;
Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp.
(N.D.Ohio 1990),
{¶ 9} It is clear from the record, and undisputed by Russell Collins, that Brigitte Collins was never properly served with the complaint for divorce pursuant to the terms of the Hague Convention. Therefore, the court had no personal jurisdiction over Brigitte Collins.
{¶ 10} A decree of divorce is regarded as a judgment in rem because it determines the marital status of the parties. See
Hager v. Hager
(1992),
{¶ 11} In order to determine financial issues, the trial court must have personal jurisdiction based upon notice to and proper service on the defendant. See
Kvinta v. Kvinta,
10th Dist. No. 02AP-836,
{¶ 12} The trial court erred in granting Brigitte Collins’s
{¶ 13} The third assignment of error, alleging that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the provisions of the Hague Convention, is overruled because the trial court is required to follow the applicable law.
{¶ 14} The fourth assignment of error, which alleges that Brigitte Collins did not timely file her
{¶ 15} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with law and this decision.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.