Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Janni v. Janni
Citations: 271 Ark. 953; 611 S.W.2d 785; 1981 Ark. App. LEXIS 638Docket: CA 80-394
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; February 18, 1981; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Bobbie Sue Janni initiated a divorce action against Samuel Wayne Janni, seeking absolute divorce, custody of their three children, and child support. The chancellor granted the divorce and awarded custody to Bobbie, but left child support matters open for future determination. Bobbie's appeal focuses on the trial court's decision not to mandate child support payments or attorney’s fees, arguing that the court erroneously claimed it lacked personal jurisdiction over Samuel. The couple married in 1969, lived in various locations, and separated in 1978 when Samuel asked Bobbie to leave their home in Michigan. Bobbie filed for divorce in Arkansas in 1979, serving Samuel via certified mail, which was deemed valid under Arkansas statutes allowing for service on individuals outside the state for actions arising from acts conducted within Arkansas. Samuel did not respond in court, and an attorney ad litem was appointed to inform him of the proceedings. The relevant Arkansas statutes allow for personal jurisdiction over individuals who have committed acts in the state, regardless of their current residency. The case cites Bunker v. Bunker to support the assertion that Arkansas maintains jurisdiction because it was the last matrimonial domicile and where the cause of action arose. Bunker voluntarily leaving the state raises concerns about potential hardship for Mrs. Bunker if it prevents her from suing in Arkansas. The Court declines to apply the reasoning from Bunker v. Bunker to this case due to two key differences: (1) in Bunker, the husband's actions occurred in Arkansas, while in this case, they occurred in Michigan; (2) the last matrimonial domicile for Bunker was in Arkansas, whereas it was in Michigan here. The appellant’s reference to International Shoe Co. v. Washington is misplaced, as the Arkansas Supreme Court previously cited it to indicate no constitutional limits on state jurisdiction in similar cases. However, Arkansas statutes do not extend personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants like the appellee, who did not commit any acts in Arkansas that would give rise to the cause of action, despite causing harm there. The Court concludes that while extending the Bunker reasoning seems plausible, it cannot do so, affirming that the trial court lacks the authority to issue a personal judgment against the appellee. Judge Fogleman agrees with this opinion, while Judge Corbin did not participate.