This Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1252 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). “This Court is in the same position as the trial court, with all the facts set out in the pleadings or exhibits.”
¶6. This Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). "This Court is in the same position as the trial court, with all the facts set out in the pleadings or exhibits."
However, "[w]hen reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction, this court employs a de novo review." Sanghi v. Sanghi 759 So.2d 1250, 1252 (¶ 7) (Miss. Ct.App. 2000). DISCUSSION
However, " [w]hen reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction, this court employs a de novo review." Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1252(¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). DISCUSSION
But "[w]hen reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction, this Court employs a de novo review." Sanghi v. Sanghi , 759 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Sufficiency of process is a jurisdictional issue.
¶ 9. Domestic relations cases, such as this one, remain subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Although courts do maintain personal jurisdiction over parties in relation to these recurring motions, certain Rule 81 matters, because of their special nature, require special notice.
Domestic relations cases, such as this one, remain subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Although courts do maintain personal jurisdiction over parties in relation to these recurring motions, certain Rule 81 matters, because of their special nature, require special notice.
Here, the chancery court was correct in finding jurisdiction over Wallace in the contempt matter because a domestic relations case remains subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Once a court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant at the time of divorce, the court is presumed to have continuing jurisdiction.
Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find that this is a significant factor. In Sanghi v. Sanghi , 759 So. 2d 1250, 1253 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000), this Court explained that the reason a Rule 81 summons is required is because "[a] domestic relations case remains subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. A pleading to alert the other party that a new dispute has arisen is in the nature of awakening a dormant suit , distinguishable both from commencing new litigation and from just filing a motion in active litigation.
"This Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction." Pearson v. Browning, 106 So.3d 845, 847 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1252 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)). ¶23.