Court Opinion

ID: 9599320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:17:46.570915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:57.893689
License: Public Domain

Brachtenbach, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the result, but must disagree with the implication of the majority that the trial court will have jurisdiction to enter a valid support order against the husband.
The husband is a nonresident. The service of process fashioned herein is constructive service only. Those two facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that the court has no jurisdiction to enter an in personam support decree. This is hornbook law, but the majority, in speculative dictum, suggests otherwise.
No valid personal judgment may be rendered against a nonresident defendant on the basis only of substituted or constructive service of process.
62 Am. Jur. 2d Process § 77, at 858 (1972).
*642Likewise, in speaking of support obligations, it is the law that
While a court may gain jurisdiction to grant a divorce on constructive service, it cannot gain jurisdiction upon such a service which will support a judgment binding the party served personally, at least not if he is a nonresident.
24 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation § 828, at 939 (1966).
The petitioner has her remedy under RCW 26.21, the uniform reciprocal enforcement of support act, under the provisions of which she need not pay a filing fee or other costs.
Hamilton, Stafford, Wright, and Utter, JJ., concur with Brachtenbach, J.