Title: Mari v. Green

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Mari v. Green1989 WY 9767 P.2d 600Case Number: 88-258Decided: 01/09/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
JOSEPH A. 
MARI, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),

 
 
v.

 
 
EULA MAE 
GREEN, APPELLEE (DEFENDANT).

 
 
Appeal from 
the District Court, CarbonCounty, Larry L. Lehman, 
J.

 
 
C.M. Aron 
of Aron and Hennig, Laramie, for appellant.

 
 
Gregg E. 
Kay, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo., 
for appellee.

 
 
Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY 
and GOLDEN, JJ.

 
 

PER 
CURIAM.

 
 

[¶1.]     As accurately related 
to the litigants in opinion letter by the Wyoming district judge:

 
 
Joseph A. 
Mari (plaintiff [and present appellant]) was divorced from his wife pursuant to 
a decree entered in Logan 
County, Colorado.

 
 
Pursuant to 
a property division order in that divorce action, plaintiff was ordered to 
execute a deed to his wife on property located in Carbon County, Wyoming. Plaintiff failed to execute the deed 
within the specified time, whereupon the Colorado court ordered the Logan County Clerk 
of             
Court, Eula Mae Green (defendant [and present appellee]), to execute the 
deed on plaintiff's behalf.

 
 
Plaintiff 
now complains against the defendant in Carbon 
County, Wyoming, by way of this 
action claiming the defendant's action of executing the deed (subsequently filed 
in CarbonCounty) granted the court 
personal jurisdiction over defendant. * * *

 
 
Defendant 
Green, a Clerk of Court in Logan County, 
Colorado, was ordered by the District Court in 
Logan County, Colorado, to execute the deed as a Court 
Commissioner. There ends her             
involvement in this matter.

 
 
Contrary to 
the criteria set forth in Anderson v. Perry, 667 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1983), 
defendant did not purposefully avail herself the privilege of acting in Wyoming, 
nor did her activities have substantial enough connection with the forum state 
to make the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant 
reasonable.

 
 
This was a 
simple and isolated act thrust upon the defendant; it was not a voluntary 
undertaking.

 
 
It was, in 
fact, plaintiff's refusal to comply with an order issued by the Colorado Court 
(who had in person[a]m jurisdiction over plaintiff) which resulted in the 
subsequent order appointing defendant as a court commissioner for the purpose of 
executing the deed. [Emphasis in original.]

 
 

[¶2.]     We concur with the 
decision of the district court that there is no personal jurisdiction over the 
appellee, Eula Mae Green, by virtue of her exercise of responsibilities as 
directed by the district court in Logan 
County, Colorado to 
execute a deed as a court commissioner.1 Markby v. St. Anthony Hosp. 
Systems, 647 P.2d 1068 (Wyo. 1982).

 
 

[¶3.]     The court finds that 
the original proceedings lacked merit, and that pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05 as 
entitled Costs and Penalties on Affirmance, there additionally is no reasonable 
cause for this appeal. Consequently, attorney fees as additional costs will be 
taxed in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to be payable to the 
office of the Attorney General of the State of Colorado.

 
 

[¶4.]     
AFFIRMED.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1 Similarly 
emplaced as other bases for this decision are judicial immunity (Stump v. 
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331, reh'g denied 436 U.S. 951, 98 S. Ct. 2862, 56 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1978); Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 
460 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 941, 90 S. Ct. 378, 24 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1969)) 
and res judicata (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; Barrett v. Town of Guernsey, 652 P.2d 395, 398 (Wyo. 1982)). It is 
noteworthy that appellant also appealed his earlier divorce decision in the 
State of Colorado and that appeal did not include a 
challenge to the jurisdiction of the divorce court against which he now attempts 
this collateral attack.

 
 
Docket 
entries for the Colorado proceeding, as well as the minimum justification which 
can be accorded this present proceeding, provide some validity to the comment of 
the Colorado Court of Appeals in, In Re the Marriage of Mari, No. 87CA0357 at 3 
(Colo. App. 1988) (not published), which stated:

 
 
Husband 
also contends that the trial court erred by failing to award him maintenance, 
because his health and personality problems prevented him from finding and 
holding a job. We disagree.

 
 
Here, there 
is evidence to support the trial court's finding that the husband's health 
problems did not restrict him from gainful employment. Furthermore, although the 
evidence established that the husband had a disagreeable personality, there is 
also evidence that he chose to be disagreeable. Just as unemployment based 
solely on disinclination to work does not mandate an award of maintenance, the 
court need not award maintenance where the party's unemployment is the result of 
a voluntary refusal to get along with people.