Title: Fleek v. Fleek

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

155 S.E.2d 290 (1967) 270 N.C. 736 Elizabeth Wright FLEEK v. John Sherwood FLEEK. No. 773. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 20, 1967. *291 Powe, Porter & Alphin, by E. K. Powe and Willis P. Whichard, Durham, for plaintiff appellant. Purrington, Joslin, Culbertson & Sedberry, by William Joslin, Raleigh, for defendant appellee. HIGGINS, Justice. The plaintiff has insisted the service of process outside the State of North Carolina, under G.S. § 1-98.2(3), gave the Court authority to enter judgment against the defendant, for the support of the children, although he is either in Switzerland or Italy. The statute provides: The plaintiff was a resident of North Carolina. The parties were married in this State and had lived here as husband and wife. Undoubtedly the Court had jurisdiction of the plaintiff and of the marriage *292 status, and authority to grant the divorce. The children were before the Court in the actual custody of the plaintiff and the Court unquestionably had authority to award custody to her. The defendant's domestic status as a party to the marriage (a proceeding quasi in rem) was before the Court for adjudication. In a proper case, the Court may acquire jurisdiction of a non-resident defendant's rights to property in this State by attachment or by garnishment, but the Court is without power to enter a judgment in personam unless and until the defendant is before the Court in person, that is, by personal service of process, or by a general appearance before the Court. The terms of the statute relating to the "domestic status of the person to be served" do not give the Court authority to render a personal judgment. A judgment in personam on such service would violate due process which requires actual notice and an opportunity to be heard. Service of process by publication is in derogation of common law rights and the statute providing for such service must be strictly construed. Harrison v. Hanvey, 265 N.C. 243, 143 S.E.2d 593; Jones v. Jones, 243 N.C. 557, 91 S.E.2d 562; Board of Com'rs of Roxboro v. Bumpass, 233 N.C. 190, 63 S.E.2d 144. In Surratt v. Surratt, 263 N.C. 466, 139 S.E.2d 720, this Court stated: In the case of Lennon v. Lennon, 252 N.C. 659, 114 S.E.2d 571, this Court stated that the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution does not entitle a judgment in personam to extra-territorial effect when such judgment is rendered without jurisdiction over the person sought to be bound. In adopting the language in the case of May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S. Ct. 840, 97 L. Ed. 1221, this Court stated: Lee, in his work, North Carolina Family Law, Sec. 99, states: A pertinent statement of the rule concerning jurisdiction over an absent father-husband is contained in 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, Sec. 828, as follows: *293 In 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, Sec. 542, after stating that a court may enter a valid judgment of divorce without ever acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, it is then stated: For the reasons assigned and upon the basis of the authorities cited and many others of like import, the judgment of the Superior Court of Durham County is Affirmed.