Carr v. Carr, 46 N.Y.2d 270 (1978)
A state court lacks jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a matrimonial action when the defendant has no minimum contacts with the state, even if the plaintiff is a state resident seeking a declaration regarding marital status.
Summary
Ann Carr, a New York resident, sued Barbara Carr, a California resident, seeking a declaration that Ann was the lawful surviving spouse of Paul Carr and that Paul’s Honduran divorce from Ann was invalid. Barbara had married Paul after the divorce and was seeking survivor benefits. The New York Court of Appeals held that New York lacked jurisdiction over Barbara because she had no minimum contacts with New York. The court reasoned that while status adjudications like divorce can sometimes proceed with only one party domiciled in the state, this requires either in rem or in personam jurisdiction, neither of which existed here regarding Barbara. The marital “res” cannot provide a jurisdictional basis after the death of one spouse to bind a third party without in personam jurisdiction.
Facts
Ann Carr married Paul Carr in Nevada in 1956 and lived with him in various countries due to his Foreign Service work.
In 1965, Ann left Paul in Honduras and returned to the United States, eventually settling in New York.
Paul obtained an ex parte Honduran divorce from Ann based on abandonment.
Barbara Carr had resided in California since 1962 and claimed to have married Paul in Nevada in 1974.
Barbara had no contacts with New York State.
After Paul’s death in 1975, Barbara applied for survivor benefits from the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.
Procedural History
Ann Carr commenced an action in New York to invalidate the Honduran divorce and declare herself the lawful surviving spouse.
Special Term granted Barbara Carr’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the action.
Issue(s)
Whether a New York court has jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant (Barbara Carr) in a declaratory judgment action brought by a New York resident (Ann Carr) to determine the validity of a prior divorce and marital status, when the non-resident defendant has no minimum contacts with New York.
Holding
No, because the non-resident defendant had no minimum contacts with New York, and the marital “res” does not provide a basis for jurisdiction after the death of one spouse to bind a third party without in personam jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that divorce jurisdiction requires at least one party to be domiciled in the state. While domicile can support in rem jurisdiction over marital status, this is insufficient when the defendant has no contacts with the state and the action seeks to bind a non-domiciliary third party after the death of one spouse.
The court emphasized the absence of minimum contacts between Barbara Carr and New York, citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington and Kulko v. California Superior Ct., noting that Barbara had not purposefully derived any benefits from activities related to New York.
The court rejected the argument that New York’s interest in adjudicating the marital rights of its domiciliary (Ann Carr) was sufficient to establish jurisdiction over Barbara.
The court distinguished traditional status suits, which seek to terminate or declare void an existing marriage, from the present case, where the very existence of the marital res (i.e., the validity of Paul’s divorce and subsequent marriage to Barbara) was the question to be resolved. The court declined to decide whether such declaratory judgment actions could ever be maintained without personal jurisdiction, as the lack of minimum contacts was dispositive.
The court stated, “Plainly, the absence of any contact between defendant and New York is an obstacle to the exercise of personal jurisdiction. If defendant had even a minimal relationship with the State, there is little doubt that jurisdiction in this declaratory judgment action could be sustained”.