In re MARRIAGE OF MYRLAND
248 P.3d 290 (2010)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Carl (H) sought review of an order dismissing his petition, for
dissolution of marriage and a parenting plan, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
FACTS: H and W were married in 1998, in Helena, Montana. They had one child. They moved
to North Carolina for work. Then, W moved to Las Vegas. The child and H moved back to
Montana and remained in the state from 2002-2006. W made no attempt to contact the child. In
March, 2006, W came to Helena along with her partner whom she introduced as her common law
husband. They were living in the cab of a semi-truck that they parked in front of the house
where H and the child were living. W requested to take the child 'for her Birthday' and
offered to return her in a month. She never returned. W filed an action for dissolution of
marriage in Texas on May 26, 2006. H filed for a dissolution action in Montana on October 2,
2006. H attempted to serve W in Nevada, but to no avail. H effectively served W in Texas on
about March 23, 2009. The court granted H's petition for default and issued a Decree of
Dissolution. The Decree included a Parenting Plan. The court issued the Decree without
actual knowledge of W's appearance by mail on file at the courthouse. On W's motion the
default was set aside. Court determined that the dissolution and custody should be resolved
in Texas. H appeals.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment