Posts tagged "1117416"

Sullivan v. Smith (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-174-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-1626                                       Appeals Court   EARLINE SULLIVAN  vs.  CRAIG S. SMITH.     No. 15-P-1626.   Hampden.     September 20, 2016. – December 16, 2016.   Present:  Meade, Carhart, & Kinder, JJ.     Parent and Child, Child support.  Probate Court, General equity power, Notice.  Jurisdiction, Equitable.  Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.  Jurisdiction, Personal.  Due Process of Law, Jurisdiction over nonresident.  Practice, Civil, Service of process.  Notice.       Complaint in equity filed in the Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on November 12, 2014.   Judgment was entered by David G. Sacks, J.; a motion for postjudgment relief, filed on July 31, 2015, was considered by him; a motion to dismiss, filed on September 3, 2015, was heard by him; and a corrected order lifting a stay on child support payments was entered by him.     Ann E. Dargie for the defendant.     KINDER, J.  Craig S. Smith (Smith or father), a Georgia resident, appeals from a judgment and orders of the Probate and Family Court ordering him to pay postminority child support to Earline Sullivan (Sullivan or guardian), the former guardian of Smith’s unemancipated eighteen year old son.  On appeal, Smith argues that the Probate and Family Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and that the judgment is therefore void.  He also challenges the sufficiency of both service of the complaint and notice of the hearing at which the judgment entered.  We affirm, concluding that the long-arm provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), G. L. c. 209D, § 2-201,[1] provide personal jurisdiction over Smith, that service of process was sufficient, and that he had adequate notice of the hearing. Background.  We summarize the relevant factual and procedural history from the undisputed facts set forth in the judge’s orders, as well as the verified complaint and the relevant dockets.  See Eccleston v. Bankosky, 438 Mass. 428, 429 (2003).  See also Brookline v. Goldstein, 388 Mass. 443, 447 (1983) (both trial judge and appellate court may take judicial notice of court records in related action); Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 530 (2002). Smith is the father of a son born on July 13, 1996.  Smith acknowledged paternity in an action brought first by the mother pursuant to G. L. c. 209C, and later by the Department of Revenue pursuant to G. L. c. 119A and G. L. c. 209C.  Smith was ordered […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 16, 2016 at 6:13 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,