Document: 436 U.S. 84 98 S.Ct. 1690 56 L.Ed.2d 132 Ezra KULKO, Appellant,v.SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR the CITY COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO (Sharon Kulko Horn, Real Party in Interest). No. 77-293. Argued March 29, 1978. Decided May 15, Rehearing Denied June 26, See 438 908, 3127. Syllabus. Appellant and appellee, both then New York domiciliaries, were married 1959 California during appellant's three-day stopover while he was en route to overseas military duty. After marriage, appellee returned York, as did appellant following his r of duty a 24-hour California. In 1961 1962 son daughter born them where family resided together until 1972, when separated. Appellee moved Under separation agreement, executed by parties children remain with father school year but specified vacations mother, whom agreed pay $3,000 per child support for periods her custody. Appellee, after obtaining divorce Haiti, which incorporated terms December 1973 at request father's consent joined mother California, remained there year, spending father. without consent, arranged join about two years later. brought this action against establish Haitian decree judgment, modify judgment so award full custody children, increase child-support obligations. Appellant, resisting claim increased support, appeared specially, claiming that lacked sufficient "minimum contacts" State under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 310, 316, 66 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, warrant State's assertion personal jurisdiction over him. The Supreme Court, upholding lower-court determinations adverse appellant, concluded nonresident defendant has caused an "effect" act or omission outside State, arising from effect may be exercised whenever "reasonable," such exercise "reasonable" here because had "purposely availed himself benefits protections California" sending live there, it "fair reasonable" subject children. Held: personam courts domiciliary, would violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. mere connotes no intent obtain nor expectancy receiving corresponding benefit make fair judicial appellant. Pp. 91-101. (a) A bound him must "have certain minimum contacts [the forum State] maintenance suit does not offend 'traditional notions play substantial justice.' " supra, 158 quoting Milliken Meyer, 311 457, 463, 61 339, 342, 85 278. P. 92. (b) acquiescence daughter's desire enough confer courts. Shaffer Heitner, 433 186, 216, 97 2569, 2586, 53 683. 94. (c) Exercise warranted financial derived presence nine months since any diminution household costs resulted child's absence home, appellee's failure seek payments York. 94-96. (d) "effects" rule applied is intended reach wrongful activity causing injury within application "unreasonable," here, vis ted physical on either property persons California; cause arises personal, domestic relations; controversy occurred modification sought contract negotiated signed virtually connection "unreasonable" assert 96-97. (e) Since marital domicile more than acquiesce stated preference basic considerations fairness point decisively proper adjudicating case, whatever merits underlying claim. 97-98. (f) California's legitimate interest ensuring residing unduly disrupting children's lives already being served participation Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act 1968, permits resident file petition have its adjudicated alleged obligor's residence, party's having leave own State. signatory similar statute. Those statutes appear provide means vindicate claimed right additional collection found owed 98-101. Appeal dismissed certiorari granted; 19 Cal.3d 514, 138 Cal.Rptr. 586, 564 P.2d 353, reversed. Lawrence H. Stotter, San Francisco, Cal., Suzie S. Thorn, appellee. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 issue before us whether, state nonresident, nondomiciliary parent minor domiciled For reasons set forth below, we hold 2 * Sharon Horn 1959, base Texas tour Korea. At time residents Immediately Their first child, Darwin, Kulkos 1961, later their second Ilsa, born, also City continuously 3 Following separation, Cal. written agreement drawn up York; September flew order sign agreement. provided, inter alia, spend Christmas, Easter, summer mother. While waived maintenance, wife care, custody, control. execution Haiti procured there;1 She she remarried took name Horn. 4 vacations, provided 1973. time, just Ilsa Christmas vacation told wanted vacation. bought one-way plane ticket, left, taking clothing her. commenced living January 1976, other called advised Unbeknownst sent ticket son, used fly residence sister. 5 Less one month Darwin's arrival Superior judgment; children; obligations.2 specially quash service summons ground 95 (1945), 6 trial court summarily denied motion quash, review Court writ mandate. contest court's purposes determination, but, respect renewed argument appellate affirmed denial reasoning that, consenting "caused th[e] state" warranting 133 627, 628 (1976). 7 granted review, 4-2 decision sustained rulings lower 353 (1977). It noted Code Civil Procedure demonstrated utilize all bases "not inconsistent Constitution."3 Agreeing causes "reasonable." Id., 521, Cal.Rptr., 588, P.2d, 356. went case laws 521-522, 524, 591, 356, 358. noting not, "with [California]"—since who Darwin 1976—the reasonable committed acts confers [sic] consented permanent California." 525, 358-359. 8 view dissenting justices, permitting move could regarded purposeful invoked protection law. been only brief occasions many stopovers, contact argued reasonably subjected 526-529, 592-593, 359-360. 9 On Kulko's appeal probable postponed. 434 983, 607, 54 476 We lie,4 treating papers certiorari, hereby grant reverse below.5 II 10 Amendment operates limitation enter judgments affecting rights interests defendants. 198-200, 2577, 683 long valid imposing obligation favor plaintiff entered person defendant. Pennoyer Neff, 714, 732-733, 24 565, 572 (1878); U.S., S.Ct., 158. existence jurisdiction, turn, depends upon notice brought. Mullane Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 306, 313-314, 70 652, 656-657, 94 865 (1950), between require defense forum. 463-464, 342-343, 278 (1940). dispute adequacy received, contends too attenuated, standards implicit Constitution, justify burden inconvenience 11 are constitutional standard determining whether binding Court's supra: 342. proceeding plaintiff's choice are, course, considered, see McGee Life Insurance 355 220, 223, 78 199, 201, 223 (1957), essential criterion cases "quality nature" defendant's "fair" conduct 316-317, 319, 159. Accord, 207-212, 2581-2584; Perkins Benguet Mining 342 437, 445, 72 413, 418, 96 485 (1952). 12 Like requires determination "reasonableness," test susceptible mechanical application; rather, facts each weighed determine requisite "affiliating circumstances" present. Hanson Denckla, 357 235, 246, 1228, 1235, 1283 (1958). recognize few answers will "in black white. greys dominant even among shades innumerable." Estin Estin, 334 541, 545, 68 1213, 1216, 92 1561 (19 8). But believe minimum-contacts represents unwarranted extension would, if sustained, sanction result neither fair, just, reasonable. A. 13 reaching result, rely glancing some events led controversy, have. occasions, once way Korea, 86-87, again 1960 return Korean service. To temporary visits basis unrelated actions future mockery limitations imposed Nor fact actually visits. agree convenience, marry thereafter entire life marriage itself cannot spouse remains relating support. 14 Finally, holding existed, below carefully disclaimed reliance allow three pursuant As Cal.3d, 523-524, 590, 357, find basis, merely discourage parents entering into visitation agreements. Moreover, arbitrarily Union chose offspring agreement.6 emphasized: 15 "The unilateral those relationship satisfy requirement . [I]t purposefully avails [him]self privilege conducting activities .." 253, 1240. 16 "purposeful act" believed "actively fully consent[ing] SCHOOL YEAR SEN[DIng] california purpose." accept proposition Ilsa's conferred action. agrees, harmony preferences, required can hardly said "purposefully himself" "benefits protections" laws. 586.7 17 year. 524-525, 590-591, This rests premise liability unchanged, yearly expenses supporting decreased. circumstance, true, here. Any resulted, rather home. now brought, York;8 clearly and, increasing obligations, properly enforced California.9 ultimate advantage thus results earlier agreement.10 contrary, our view, confuses question liability. B 18 light conclusion derive apparent misplaced. supra., 89. American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) Conflict Laws § 37 (1971), provides: "A power e ercise individual effects done elsewhere these unless nature individual's unreasonable."11 20 provision event below. examples accompanying Restatement, section see, e. g., Comment a, p. 157 (shooting bullet another), commercial residents, ibid. Even situations, moreover, recognizes might circumstances render 21 jurisdiction. There visited Cf. Hess Pawloski, 274 352, 47 632, 71 1091 (1927). herein asserted arises, transactions interstate commerce, relations. solicitation business liable court; fairly analogized insurer's insurance premium notices insured (1957). Furthermore, seeks sign. 252, 1239, instant involves n. 6, supra. 22 adjudication domicile, whereas across continent. Anderson, 345 528, 534-535, 8, 73 840, 843-844, 1221 (1953). times well. above, single surely expect strain litigating 3,000 miles away, therefore anticipated "haled [California] court," 2586.12 turn instead unsuccessfully prevent departure impose unreasonable relations, wholly unjustified III 23 seeking argues protecting welfare promoting fullest extent possible healthy supportive environment raised. These unquestionably important. arguably law lawsuit 'center gravity' choice-of-law mean 254, And attempted particularized trying by, enacting special jurisdictional Ins. 221, 224, 200-201. lives, Revised 1968. statute provides mechanism communication systems different States, facilitate procurement enforcement decrees dependent reside version essentially Cal.Civ.Proc. Ann. 1650 et seq. (West 1972 Supp. 1978).13 Act.14 Thus, plaintiff-appellee former husband court, seesupra, Acts prosecution appellant.15 25 disputed facilitating behalf simply do forum," 215, derives lacks relevant defend suffer default. IV 26 failed heed admonition "the flexible "heral[d] eventual demise restrictions courts." 251, 1238. commented evolving due process, explaining trend large part "attributable nationalization commerce [accompanied by] modern transportation [that] made much less burdensome party sued engages economic activity." 222-223, 201. 27 Accordingly, conclude service, lack erroneously is, therefore, 28 Reversed. 29 BRENNAN, WHITE POWELL join, dissenting. 30 treats presenting narrow question. That correctly "weighed" facts," ante, 92, particular applying settled "constitutional standard," ibid., "certain [with (1945). "this 'in white,' I say state-court implausible, though close, my independent weighing leads me conclude, analysis reasonableness Clause, dissent. Jurisdictional Statement, 5, asserts parties" affidavit submitted attorney App. 28. states person" filed "Power Attorney submission jurisdiction." 14. Horn's complaint restraining removing immediately restrained 520, record reflect still enjoined Section 410.10, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code 1973), Constitution United States." distinguish requirements Federal Constitutions. 588-589, true (1958), (1953), improperly appeal, "drawn repugnant treaties States," U.S.C. 1257(2). construed broad permits. 3, argue unconstitutional, precluded purport constitutionality Rather, decided permit requested 1257(2) lacking, acted 2103. follow practice deeming certiorari. May, shall continue refer minimize confusion. 244, 1234; 530, 841. decision, continuance trial-court proceedings pending disposition appeal. Appellant's subsequently determined arrears payments. Brief ii-iii. change arrangements, ordered obligations substantially. Ibid. amounted general appearance waiver objections, accordingly longer us. Appellee's concerning continuance, however, statutes, rules, cites. expressly determined, subsequent "made Court." i. circumstances, challenge moot. Although mailed address, specifically contemplated directed mail Francisco address "any Wife designate writing." 10. gave "police fire protection, system, hospital services, recreational facilities, libraries museums ." 522, 589, But, presented services father, himself. "indemnify [his] harmless fees, incur reason default [appellant] performance performed conditions agreement." 11. arrearages, litigation expenses, presumably including incurred prosecute borne final matter entitled faith credit ex rel. Halvey Halvey, 330 610, 614, 67 903, 905, 91 1133 (1947). Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 407, 553, 561, 42 532 (1975). well law, through 1974, de facto provisions place, Clark, Domestic Relations 15.2, 500 (1968); cf. re Santa Clara County Hughes, 43 Misc.2d 559, 251 N.Y.S.2d 579 (1964). effectively Judicial Council (9) 410.10 1973). Developments Law—State-Court Jurisdiction, Harv.L.Rev. 909, 911 (1960). addition States signatories Act. U.L.A. 473 (Supp.1978). Act, "obligee" (the "initiating court") §§ 11, (1973). If "finds [petition] sets obligor owes responding property," send copy "responding state." requesting "to obligor." 18(b). obtained, hearing may, chooses, litigated deposition testimony initiating party. 20. finds present sought, 7, petitioner entered. 24. money collected distribution 1950, amended. N.Y. Dom. Rel. (McKinney 1977) (Uniform Dependents Law). By 1957 equivalent, enacted organized Territories, District Columbia. 885 "two-state" procedure 1950 enforcing another 1968 13, generally Note, 48 Cornell L.Q. 541 (1963). Landes Landes, N.Y.2d 358, 153 14, 135 N.E.2d 562, dismissed, 352 948, 77 325, 241 (1956), upheld divorced No prior existed parties; couple's Appeals procedures followed—filing followed certification York's Family husband, petition, entry award—were constitutional. jurisdictions. See, Watson Dreadin, 309 A.2d 493 (D.C.App.1973), cert. denied, 415 959, 1488, 39 574 (1974); Terry Terry, 80 N.M. 185, 453 206 (1969); Harmon Harmon, 184 Cal.App.2d 245, 279 (1960), 366 270, 81 1100, 382 (1961). concluded, 223-224, contracts, plaintiffs "severe disadvantage" out-of-state defendants sometimes unavailable.

Category: 3