Court Opinion

ID: 9564212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:56:09.564581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:17.097779
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice
(concurring in result) :
As reflected in the majority opinion, the final decree of divorce in this case expressly retained jurisdiction of the appellant “for all purposes, including the issuance of such additional order or orders as may be necessary to enforce compliance herewith.” The power of the court to thus retain personal jurisdiction of the appellant was not challenged by appeal from the divorce decree nor is such power of the court challenged in this proceeding.
As I understand the majority opinion, it purports to hold that jurisdiction of the person of this nonresident appellant, as well as jurisdiction of the cause, continued even without *327any express reservation in the decree to that effect. Jurisdiction of the person having been expressly retained, without challenge, there simply is no issue before us as to what the situation would have been had not jurisdiction of the person been so expressly retained.
Despite some rather broad statements in legal texts, and some opinions about continuing jurisdiction in divorce cases, research indicates that the law is far from settled as to the extent, if any, to which the jurisdiction of the person of a nonresident party continues in the absence of an express provision in the decree, or a controlling statute as to the retention or regaining of jurisdiction of the person of such nonresident party. Under the circumstances, I would simply refrain from passing upon an issue, which I deem not properly before us, the decision thereof being unncessary to the disposition of this appeal.