*1 PLUCKER, Plaintiff K. Sandra PLUCKER, Defendant
Ronald E. Court of South 10, 1982. on Briefs
Considered 5, 1983. Falls, III, Gridley
John N. Sioux appellee. plaintiff Pruitt, Mat- Willy, W. Matthews Acie Johnson, Farrell, thews, Frankman & Sioux Falls, appellant. for defendant (on reassign- HENDERSON, Justice ment). court’s dat-
We affirm awarding appellee ar- $11,789.61 alimony and child costs, thereon, and other rearages, sustaining original therein declarations decree. husband and Minnesota, on Pipestone, were married in daughters were 1961. Two August marriage; Rhonda on born of the *2 19, 1962, judgment divorce, 1966. A vacate the May and Rochelle decree of or, alternative, in Minneh- marital domicile was established in the to por- vacate those 11, Dakota. County, aha South On tions of the decree of divorce which award- 1977, petition wife filed a divorce appellee appellee alimony, support, fur- County, in Minnehaha South appellant ther ordered to certain pay bills departed forum husband state. attorney fees and costs. 16, 1977, leaving on April Appellant contends that wife, children, perso- and some behind court was without to enter a wife and the children have nalty. Appellee personal judgment against alimony, him for Dakota at all times been residents of South di support, liability other process hereto. Personal service of relevant vorce action. We disagree. upon appellant was husband in effectuated 6, California on statute, long-arm Our part provides: relevant failed to answer or Appellant husband jurisdic- Any person subject in the Dakota ac- appear otherwise South any tion of the courts of this state as to After notice of intent to take a de- tion. appellant doing fault was mailed to cause of action California, appellee husband in wife was personally, through any employee, ex divorce in Dako- granted parte South an or through agent through subsidiary, 10, February Judgment ta on any following of acts: of appellee awarding entered in favor
her, among things, per month $100 use, of (3) ownership, possession The or month child at- per support, $150 or of there- any property, any 1, fees, 1978, torney’s and costs. On June state; in, situated within Reciprocal wife filed a Uniform appellee (URESA) Act ac- Support Enforcement against appellant under ch. 25-9
tion a minor child (7) support Failure 13, On September husband California. Dakota;1 residing in South 1978, appeared husband in the appellant California, County of Or- Superior Court action for di- (9) respect any With than ange, attacking and rather South vorce, spousal maintenance or separate judgment, entry Dakota consented to the this state the maintenance in directing per an order him to $150 domicile at the time of a matrimonial month child the commission in the claim arose or 1978, 19, appellant On October giving an act rise to the this state of filed an affidavit to show cause collaterally claim, subject attacking personam juris- South Dakota’s § 25-4-30[.]2 diction and the return of his requesting with comport Provisions of 15-7-2 personalty Appellee South Dakota. the out-of- requirements when due and filed her motion to show resisted own “pur has sufficient minimal party cause husband be held requesting appellant Kul with poseful contacts” South contempt for failure to meet the divorce 84, Court, 436 U.S. Superior ko v. California April appellee terms. In 132, rehearing 56 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. wife executed a second URESA denied, 98 S.Ct. 438 U.S. husband, against appellant who was then In Bunker v. L.Ed.2d 30,1981, residing in Arizona. On December S.W.2d her application wife renewed Smith, writing Rose George appel- in the divorce action and show cause Court, stated: for the Arkansas lant husband with a motion responded (9) S.D.Sess. (7) was added in 1983 2. Subdivision 1. Subdivision was added in 1978 S.D.Sess. Laws ch. 1.§ Laws ch. Therefore, test is the defendant’s original.) “The basic whether (Emphasis clear that the contacts within state were such language removes any not offend maintenance suit does posi- claimed merit notions of and substan- play traditional fair tion. justice.
tial
International
Co.
Shoe
Affirmed.
Washington, 326 U.S.
66 S.Ct.
*3
(1945).”
L.Ed. 95
C.J.,
FOSHEIM,
and DUNN
MOR-
husband maintained marital
JJ.,
GAN,
concur. .
in
mi-
domicile
South Dakota. He left his
property
voyage
WOLLMAN, J.,
nor children
here to
part
concurs in
and dis-
California and Arizona. This state has an
part.
sents in
interest in all acts
as an incident to
arising
WOLLMAN,
(concurring
part,
marriage.
(Second) of
"Restatement
dissenting
part).
(1971),
Conflict of Laws
36
e
comment
§
that
provides
part:
agree
holding
I
under our
in Johan
Johansen,
v.
305
383 (S.D.1981),
sen
N.W.2d
A
is
all
naturally
interested in
imposing
that
portion
child
within its territory.
acts done
A state
juris-
is
support obligations upon appellant
judicial
have
over
usually
jurisdiction
will
dictionally valid.
does,
who
an individual
or who causes
done,
act,
in the state
though
be
even
15-7-2(9),
I
agree
If
could
that
as
SDCL
tortious,
claimed to
as to
is not
be
by
added
1983
ch.
S.D.Sess.Laws
§
act.
case,
retroactively
to this
applicable
I
safely
We
conclude that due
may
join
upholding
portion
would
that
was not offended herein.
imposing
obligation
attorney fees,
day
and costs. The
Appellant husband’s attack on his
past when a valid
can be
is
attack
leveled
It
support obligation
must fail.
is
against
constitutionality
statutes
jurisdiction
well settled in this
that a child’s
in personam jurisdiction in the
granting
domicile in
sufficient
15-7-2(9).
of cases
by
class
covered
personam jurisdiction
attach in
a nonres
See,
Bunker v.
e.g.,
parent
obtaining
ident
for the
purpose
(1977);
641
Whitaker v.
552 S.W.2d
Whitak
support.
15-7-2(7);
Johansen
er,
(1976);
230
237 Ga.
S.E.2d 486
Bak
Johansen,
(S.D.1981).
v.
305
383
N.W.2d
Baker,
100
er v.
Idaho
son, (1946). 24 71 S.D. N.W.2d 327 granting In the absence of a statute ex- personam jurisdiction tra-territorial pervasive As a further more however, cases, relations the rule domestic decision, ground acknowledge we Nelson, to in Nelson v. 71 referred S.D. to the case applicability obtains, still Kusel, 24 N.W.2d As we held in at bar. Johnson (S.D.1980): the result that a court’s ‘as a with N.W.2d “Considered whole,’ non-resident in a action ex- it is clear in over a relationship only subdi it- marriage tended that SDCL 15-7-2 and all its tends judg- to be cannot retroactively.” personal visions are self and applied See, ment for or child alimony In Re
e.g.,
Marriage
Vogel,
293 N.W.2d
(Iowa 1980);
Wiles,
Wiles v.
211 Or.
(1957);
vorce and Kusel,
It is true that in Johnson v. (S.D.1980),
N.W.2d we held that later-en-
acted provisions expanding scope
SDCL 15-7-2 should be retroactive
effect in view of a section of gave
the enactment rise to SDCL 15-
7-2(3), which states that the provision of
SDCL 15-7-1 and 15-7-2 are to apply *4 before the enact-
ment thereof. Were not for the fact that
the 1983 enactment emergen- contained an clause,
cy I would be to hold hard-pressed the legislature did not intend that give
SDCL 15-7-4 should retroactive effect
to the several subsections contained in
Chapter legislature’s pre- knowledge
sumed of our holding in Johnson
v. Kusel. The fact that an emergency appended
clause was Chapter indi- me, however,
cates to
did not intend that the 1983 amendments be effect,
given retroactive for such retroac-
tive application would have made it unnec-
essary give immediate force effect to of Chapter Accordingly,
I would hold that has no
application to the case before us.
STATE of South Plaintiff ELL,
Ronald R. Defendant
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Submitted Briefs