Opinion ID: 2552701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jurisdiction via Marital Settlement Agreement

Text: Despite the dearth of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, defendant argues that because he and plaintiff agreed in their MSA that Rhode Island would remain the home state for purposes of the UCCJEA, the parties' agreement trumps the interstate jurisdictional acts. His argument centers around three main points: (1) plaintiff submitted herself to the courts of Rhode Island and therefore waived any right to challenge jurisdiction; (2) she freely entered into a forum selection clause that is enforceable; and (3) when a party has chosen a forum, she cannot then argue that the forum is inconvenient. Unfortunately, Moss merges these contentions into a single and somewhat confusing argument, in which he attempts to persuade this Court to disregard settled law and declare that the Family Court nonetheless may decide a case based on the parties' contract, notwithstanding that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. It is axiomatic that [t]he concepts of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction    serve different purposes   . Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of the    Court to act in a given situation[,] Paolino, 420 A.2d at 833, and no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a    court. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 456 U.S. at 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099. Personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, is [a] court's power to bring a person into its adjudicative process[,] Black's Law Dictionary 930 (9th ed. 2004), and because the notion of personal jurisdiction represents a restriction on judicial power    as a matter of individual liberty[,] it can, like other such rights, be waived. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 456 U.S. at 702, 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099. A party may waive his or her right to a personal-jurisdiction challenge by entering into a contract that contains a forum selection clause. American Biophysics Corp. v. Dubois Marine Specialties, 411 F.Supp.2d 61, 62 (D.R.I. 2006) (citing Microfibres Inc. v. McDevitt-Askew, 20 F.Supp.2d 316 (D.R.I.1998)); ( see also National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964)) (parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court). An enforceable forum-selection clause does more than waive a potential challenge to personal jurisdictionit settles the proper venue for the case and prevents a party that has agreed to be bound   [from]    assert[ing] forum non conveniens as a ground for dismissing a suit brought in the chosen forum. (Emphasis added.) American Biophysics Corp., 411 F.Supp.2d at 62. However, when the chosen forum has no authority to hear the case, [a] court never can apply forum non conveniens once it determines that jurisdiction is lacking. Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171, 1183 (R.I.2008) (citing Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 433, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007)). In Tateosian v. Celebrity Cruise Services, Ltd., 768 A.2d 1248 (R.I.2001), we noted that, to be enforceable, forum-selection clauses must be fundamentally fair. Id. at 1250 (citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) and Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595-97, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991)). In Tateosian, 768 A.2d at 1250, this Court concluded that the federal court was the proper court to hear the matter because the contract at issue was a maritime contract governed by federal maritime law. In other words, before turning to the issue of fairness as it relates to forum selection, we addressed the overarching question of subject-matter jurisdiction. This procedure coincides with the general rule that, when a court has determine[d] that it lacks jurisdiction over the cause or the defendant, the proper course would be to dismiss on that ground. Kedy, 946 A.2d at 1183 (quoting Sinochem International Co. Ltd., 549 U.S. at 436, 127 S.Ct. 1184). Accordingly, we are satisfied that defendant's argument that the MSA is controlling despite the court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is meritless because litigants may not vest the Family Court with jurisdiction by agreement or otherwise. In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, a court is without power to hear a case. It matters not if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant or even that the defendant specifically and voluntarily elected the tribunal. It is a well-established principle that no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a    court where the court has no authority to act. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 456 U.S. at 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099. During oral arguments, defendant attempted to persuade this Court to abandon years of jurisprudence by pointing to the language of the UCCJEA itself, which provides that a court shall consider    [a]ny agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction[.] Section 15-14.1-19(b)(5). However, the record discloses that, at the time this agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree, Moss lived in Rhode Island. Because he and Jacalyn agreed that Rhode Island would be the exclusive forum, he argues that this Court must take that agreement into consideration. We do not read the statute in a vacuum. Section 15-14.1-19(a) instructs that [a] court of this state which has jurisdiction    may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Section 15-14.1-19 (emphasis added). The statute also provides that, before declining to exercise its jurisdiction, the Court shall consider    any agreement of the parties[.] Section 15-14.1-19(b)(5). We affirm the trial court's dismissal of Moss's motions relating to custody for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. [6]