In re Marriage of Mendez v. Hernandez-Mendez

4 Citing cases

  1. IN RE MARRIAGE NJAI

    644 N.W.2d 293 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002)

    See Wis. Stat. §§ 767.01(1) and .02(c). The family court commissioner's correspondence with Njai inquiring as to Lang's "connections to the State of Wisconsin," and her recommendation to dismiss make clear that a perceived lack of personal jurisdiction over Lang prompted the dismissal of Njai's petition. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent is a question of law which we decide de novo. Mendez v. Hernandez-Mendez, 213 Wis.2d 217, 219, 570 N.W.2d 563 (Ct.App. 1997). ¶ 7. As we have noted, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce, and we conclude that it also had jurisdiction "in rem or quasi in rem" to terminate Njai's marriage and enter an order awarding her all property in her possession or titled in her name. Wisconsin Stat. 801.07 provides as follows:

  2. IN RE MARRIAGE OF NJAI

    No. 01-1100 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2002)

    See Wis. Stat. §§ 767.01(1) and .02(c). The family court commissioner's correspondence with Njai inquiring as to Lang's "connections to the State of Wisconsin," and her recommendation to dismiss make clear that a perceived lack of personal jurisdiction over Lang prompted the dismissal of Njai's petition. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent is a question of law which we decide de novo. Mendez v.Hernandez-Mendez, 213 Wis.2d 217, 219, 570 N.W.2d 563 (Ct.App. 1997). ¶ 7. As we have noted, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce, and we conclude that it also had jurisdiction "in rem or quasi in rem" to terminate Njai's marriage and enter an order awarding her all property in her possession or titled in her name. Wisconsin Stat. 801.07 provides as follows:

  3. Montalvo v. U.S. Title & Closing Services, LLC

    827 N.W.2d 635 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012)

    See 2001 Wis. Act 42, § 1; Wis. Stat. § 801.07(5). The legislature added the language perhaps in response to our decision in Mendez v. Hernandez–Mendez, 213 Wis.2d 217, 570 N.W.2d 563 (Ct.App.1997), in which we held that the introductory language of Wis. Stat. § 801.11 requires a showing of grounds for personal jurisdiction even when only quasi in rem relief is being sought, such as a divorce. It is significant that the legislature chose not to remove the requirement of personal jurisdiction for determinations involving other property or status subject to jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 801.07. Had the legislature intended to remove the requirement of personal jurisdiction for divorce decisions involving property, it could have written the 2001 amendment more expansively.

  4. Bushelman v. Bushelman

    2001 WI App. 124 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that the nonresident husband's visits, letters, and telephone calls to Wisconsin did not satisfy the due process minimum contacts requirement to establish personal jurisdiction over him

    (5) When the action is an action affecting the family under s. 767.02 (1) (a) to (d) and when the residence requirements of s. 767.05 (1m) have been met, a court having subject matter jurisdiction may exercise jurisdiction quasi in rem to determine questions of status if the respondent has been served under s. 801.11 (1). Wisconsin Stat. § 801.11(1) requires that, in addition to proper service, there must be grounds for personal jurisdiction under one of the provisions in Wis. Stat. § 801.05. Mendez v. Hernandez-Mendez, 213 Wis.2d 217, 224, 570 N.W.2d 563 (Ct.App. 1997). Paragraph (1)(d) is the only provision of § 801.05 that is arguably relevant to this case.