Opinion ID: 1288637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of the Person

Text: Before defendant-Mrs. Sheehan can claim the district court of Johnson County has no jurisdiction over her person, she must first establish that she was a nonresident of Wyoming when served with process. She stands on the proposition that nonresidents are immune from service of process while voluntarily attending the trial of a matter in which the nonresident is a witness. State ex rel. Brainard v. District Court, Eighth Judicial District In and For Natrona County, 34 Wyo. 288, 243 P. 123; and 42 Am.Jur., Process, § 142, are cited as authority for the rule relied upon. Before confirming or denying the correctness of the rule of law relied upon, we should see whether the defendant has made a sufficient showing of nonresidency in Wyoming to justify use of the extraordinary writ of prohibition. The petition for prohibition was signed on behalf of Mrs. Sheehan by her attorneys, Edward E. Murane and R.R. Bostwick, each of whom verified the petition to be true as he verily believes. One of the allegations of the petition is that petitioner was a resident of California when served with process in civil case No. 3927. Also, excerpts from a deposition of Mrs. Sheehan have been submitted. In it she stated her permanent address is 433 Casa Verde, Monterey, California. In contradiction of the claim that Mrs. Sheehan's permanent address is 433 Casa Verde, Monterey, California, respondents have submitted an affidavit by the manager of the apartments at this address. It states Velma Moore Sheehan and Frank O. Sheehan became tenants of an apartment there in July, 1966, and that in December, 1966, they moved from the premises as Mr. Sheehan was transferred to Germany for military duty. Also, the deposition indicates there was a mutual agreement of counsel on the time and place for Mrs. Sheehan's deposition, because of her reported early departure for Germany where her husband is in the service. We cannot overlook the fact that the petition for prohibition alleges Mrs. Sheehan is a co-executor in Wyoming of the estate of Thomas C. Moore; that on July 26, 1966, she appeared in the district court of Johnson County, in her capacity as a co-executor; and that she was served at that time with summons and complaint in civil case No. 3927. Section 2-52, W.S. 1957, requires that whenever it shall appear to the judge having jurisdiction that any individual named as an executor is not a resident of this state, the court shall require such executor to designate some resident or some bank or trust company of the state as agent or attorney, upon whom any process issued out of the courts of this state may be served, which service shall have the same force and effect as if served upon such person, nonresident executor, in person; and if any nonresident executor fails to appoint such agent or attorney, the court shall revoke his authority to act. Of course, if Mrs. Sheehan really became a nonresident of Wyoming prior to July 26, 1966, she should have caused a resident agent to be named upon whom process issued out of the courts of this state could be served. Having failed to do so, she cannot complain if the court in which civil case No. 3927 was filed considered her a resident. Her failure to comply with § 2-52 at least leaves a presumption against her nonresidency. Moreover, the petition for prohibition recites that a motion was made on behalf of Mrs. Sheehan, the defendant in civil case No. 3927, as a result of which the district court dismissed five or six counts in the original complaint in civil case No. 3927; and held plaintiffs could file an amended complaint. Such an amended complaint was in fact filed and served on or about October 10, 1966. Generally speaking, a prima facie presumption of jurisdiction arises from the exercise of it. Thus, it will be presumed, from the action of the district court in hearing and allowing defendant's motion to dismiss certain counts of plaintiffs' complaint in civil case No. 3927 and in allowing plaintiffs to amend, that jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties was rightfully acquired and exercised; and the burden is on the party asserting want of jurisdiction to show such want. See 21 C.J.S. Courts § 96, p. 149; Jackson v. Bobbitt, 253 N.C. 670, 117 S.E.2d 806, 808; and Wilson v. Duncan, 188 Okl. 456, 110 P.2d 596, 600. Additional allegations of the petition for prohibition set forth that, following the filing of plaintiffs' amended complaint in civil case No. 3927, Velma Moore Sheehan made a motion in the district court to quash the service of process on the ground that defendant was not subject to service of process because of being a nonresident when process was served. This motion was supported by defendant's affidavit stating she was a resident of California and a nonresident of Wyoming when served with process. The motion, however, was resolved against her, leaving again a presumption that the district court considered and decided against the contention that Mrs. Sheehan was a nonresident of this state. Any affirmative action of this nature on the part of any court implies that it has ascertained that it had jurisdiction. 21 C.J.S. Courts § 96, p. 150; Ross v. Pitcairn, Mo., 179 S.W.2d 35, 37, 153 A.L.R. 215; Wilson v. Duncan, 188 Okl. 456, 110 P.2d 596, 600. See also High v. High, 41 Wash.2d 811, 252 P.2d 272, 274. In view of the presumptions which arose (1) from Mrs. Sheehan continuing as a resident co-executor of the Moore estate in Wyoming; (2) from the court's exercise of jurisdiction in civil case No. 3927; and (3) from the court's finding against nonresidency in connection with the motion to quash service of process, it is at least doubtful whether the unsupported allegations of petitioner, in her petition and in her affidavit, are sufficient to sustain her burden and to make out a case of nonresidency strong enough for us to invoke the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. But aside from the question of residency, the petition for prohibition must fail because Mrs. Sheehan, as the defendant in civil case No. 3927, submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the district court in Johnson County and waived her right to object thereto. After being served with summons and complaint in case No. 3927, Mrs. Sheehan at first filed motions against the complaint asserting (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and (2) a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in five of the six counts alleged. These motions did not include the defense of lack of jurisdiction over defendant's person or insufficiency of service of process. The court allowed defendant's motion to dismiss as to the first five counts, subject however to the right of plaintiffs to amend with respect to the causes dismissed. As we have already indicated, after the amended complaint of the plaintiffs was filed, defendant then sought by motion to quash the service of process and asserted for the first time a lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant. Under code pleading the defendant was required to appear specially to assert a defense founded upon insufficiency of process. An appearance for any other purpose was general and thereby submitted the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court. Honeycutt v. Nyquist, Petersen & Co., 12 Wyo. 183, 74 P. 90; Public Service Commission of Wyoming v. Russell, 51 Wyo. 463, 68 P.2d 597, 601-602. Although this strict rule of pleading has been changed under our rules of procedure, it is still necessary for a defendant to question the jurisdiction of the court over his person at his earliest opportunity. Otherwise such a defense will be considered to be waived. Subdivision (b) of Rule 12, W.R.C.P., enumerates seven defenses which may at the option of a pleader be made by motion. One of those defenses is lack of jurisdiction over the person. Then, under subdivision (g) of Rule 12, it is specified a party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it the other motions therein provided for and then available to him. Following this authorization the rule states, in pertinent part, this:    If a party makes a motion under this rule and does not include therein all defenses and objections then available to him which this rule permits to be raised by motion, he shall not thereafter make a motion based on any of the defenses or objections so omitted   . Subdivision (h) of Rule 12 also states that a party waives all defenses and objections which he does not present by motion or, if he has made no motion, in his answer or reply. Certain exceptions to such waiver are set out, but none of the exceptions relate to a lack of jurisdiction over the person. It is evident, therefore, that the result is the same under our rules of procedure as it was under code pleading as far as an objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person is concerned, except that a defendant can raise the objection by motion or answer without appearing specially. If a defendant makes one or more motions permitted under Rule 12(b), the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant must be included or it will be waived. See Orange Theatre Corporation v. Rayherstz Amusement Corporation, 3 Cir., 139 F.2d 871, 874; and Carter v. Powell, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 428, 430. The petitioner claims the amended complaint materially changed plaintiffs' causes of action; that she did not realize she was being sued in a civil action until the amended complaint was filed; that she had until then assumed the matter was strictly a probate proceeding. We find no merit in this contention, and we have been cited no authority for considering it an excuse for petitioner's failure to raise the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person at her first opportunity. We think we made it clear in Gaunt v. Kansas University Endowment Association of Lawrence, Kansas, Wyo., 379 P.2d 825, that an action brought in a district court, when the action is not made a part of probate proceedings, cannot be said to be in the probate arm of the court. In this instance the action against petitioner was initiated with a complaint and summons and the title of the cause showed it was Civil No. 3927. Moreover, the prayer of the original complaint clearly showed a declaratory judgment was sought and that a money judgment was sought for wrongful death. Under these circumstances, we fail to see how the action could have been considered anything but a civil action. Respondents say petitioner never could properly claim immunity from the service of process in civil case No. 3927, even if her other arguments were valid, because the immunity rule for a nonresident has been held not to be applicable where there is identity between the matter in which the nonresident appears and that in which service of process is claimed. See 72 C.J.S. Process § 80, p. 1115, for a statement of such an exception to the nonresident immunity rule. We have already said enough, however, to justify a conclusion that the district court had jurisdiction over the person of defendant, and we need not consider whether there is identity between the application for a widow's allowance and the suit of plaintiffs; nor whether such identity, if present, would render the nonresident immunity rule inapplicable.