No personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for relief from abuse based on out-of-state assault.

Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100 (14-Aug-2014)

ROBINSON, J. This case requires us to evaluate the constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the context of a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order. Nonresident defendant appeals the family court order granting plaintiff’s request for a final RFA order. We conclude that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter a final RFA order, and reverse.

On April 6, 2012, defendant, a New Hampshire resident, and plaintiff, a Vermont resident, attended a probate court hearing in New Hampshire. Following the hearing, defendant followed plaintiff to his car and proceeded to punch, kick, and step on plaintiff. Plaintiff was hospitalized as a result of the encounter.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for relief from abuse with the family division of the Windsor Superior Court. The trial court granted a temporary RFA order. The court interpreted 15 V.S.A. § 1102 to establish jurisdiction in RFA cases even in the absence of minimum contacts between defendant and the forum state. .

Vermont’s long-arm statute, 12 V.S.A. § 913(b), permits state courts to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants “to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. N. Aircraft, Inc. v. Reed, 154 Vt. 36, 40, 572 A.2d 1382, 1385 (1990). Vermont’s RFA statute cannot extend the court’s jurisdiction beyond the bounds of federal due process. Accordingly, the statutory and constitutional analyses in this case are one and the same.

The focus of the minimum contacts inquiry is on the relationship among the defendant, the forum state, and the cause of action. A court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. General jurisdiction applies to suits not arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 n.9 (1984). Nobody suggests that Vermont has general jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against defendant

A court may exercise specific jurisdiction where a defendant has “purposefully directed . . . activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” By attacking plaintiff in New Hampshire, defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont’s laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont’s courts. The fact that plaintiff happens to be a Vermont resident is not itself enough to give Vermont courts jurisdiction over a New Hampshire defendant for an assault in New Hampshire. .

In light of defendant’s stipulation that he abused plaintiff, and the relative proximity of New Hampshire, this may seem like a harsh result. But we decline to carve out a blanket exemption from the constitutional due process requirement of personal jurisdiction for requests for final RFA orders. The due process requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction before entering a judgment against a defendant applies to those defendants with meritorious defenses, as well as those without. And it applies to defendants in New Mexico as well as New Hampshire.

We conclude that the trial court lacked the personal jurisdiction required to issue a final RFA order.