.webp)
.png)
In order to create a divorce decree in a given marital dissolution case, the state creating that decree must have “personal jurisdiction” over both the parties involved in the case. In the State of Maryland, there are multiple ways for personal jurisdiction to be satisfied. Personal jurisdiction often arises as a contested issue in Maryland, in part because of Maryland’s closeness to other states. Certain counties in Maryland, for instance, are less than an hour drive away from multiple neighboring states, including New Jersey, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This means that it’s quite common for a petitioner to initiate a divorce case in which personal jurisdiction over the respondent may be questioned.
The case of Green v. Green (2024) is a recent case from out-of-state which gives guidance as to how personal jurisdiction issues may be approached. Let’s look at this case so we can see how Maryland courts may resolve these issues.
Facts of the Case
The couple in this case were married in Connecticut in1982. After living in Connecticut for a period, the couple relocated to the State of Nebraska. Then, in 2018, the wife moved to Colorado for the purpose of assisting the couple’s daughter with her pregnancy. After assisting the daughter, the couple purchased three houses in the greater Denver metropolitan area; the wife began to reside in one of those houses, and so she effectively moved out of Nebraska and lived independently. In 2022, the wife filed for divorce in Colorado, arguing that the husband had sufficient contacts with Colorado to meet the threshold for personal jurisdiction. The next day, the husband filed for divorce in Nebraska, and he argued that Colorado hadn’t met the requirements for personal jurisdiction over him.
Outcome & Discussion
Ultimately, the husband prevailed, as the Supreme Court of Colorado determined that only those who were “domiciled” in Colorado met the requirements for personal jurisdiction. In other words, those who aren’t domiciled in Colorado are free from personal jurisdiction in Colorado (for purposes of divorce). In this case, the court observed that the husband clearly resided in Nebraska, and had not lived in Colorado for any period of time prior to the divorce.
Implications for Maryland Personal Jurisdiction Issues
Although this case isn’t from Maryland, this case and its outcome have implications for Maryland law. This case provides “persuasive authority” for Maryland courts. Plus, we can see similar reasoning in current Maryland law with respect to personal jurisdiction. One way for parties to overcome this personal jurisdiction burden is to simply consent to personal jurisdiction. When a party voluntarily and unequivocally gives consent to personal jurisdiction, this will overcome any other barriers to such jurisdiction, including where the party currently resides. Furthermore, outside of full consent, personal jurisdiction can be inferred when a party actively participates in a case initiated in Maryland. So, if a respondent files responses and motions to a Maryland divorce case, and actively engages with the case in other ways, this may be sufficient to achieve personal jurisdiction.
Unlike the apparent rule in Colorado at this time, Maryland law has a “sufficient minimum contacts” standard which it can use to infer personal jurisdiction as well. Sufficient minimum contacts requires an independent analysis, but commonly referenced contacts include things like conducting business in Maryland, working in Maryland, or regularly traveling within the state’s borders.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources
If you want to learn more about personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or other family law topics, connect with one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
