Heinle v. Fourth Judicial District Court, 260 Mont. 489

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court held that a Montana district court lacked personal jurisdiction over a nonresident father when it modified a California child-support decree, because the record did not establish sufficient minimum contacts with Montana. The court concluded that the resulting default child-support judgment was void and granted a writ of certiorari, vacating the child-support and arrearage judgments. The court also held that the lack of an adequate appellate remedy did not bar certiorari relief from a void judgment.

Holdings

1. A Montana court must have in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident parent before entering a judgment ordering that parent to pay child support. Because the record showed no statutory or constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction over Heinle, the child-support default judgment was void.
2. The question of waiver under Rule 12(h) was immaterial because the controlling issue was whether Montana constitutionally acquired personal jurisdiction over Heinle and whether the judgment was valid and binding.
3. Certiorari was a proper remedy because the district court exceeded its jurisdiction and Heinle had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy through appeal; a party need not appeal from a judgment that is void for lack of jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Montana district court had a constitutional basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent and enter a child-support money judgment.
2. Whether Heinle's failure to make a timely personal-jurisdiction objection waived the jurisdictional defect under Rule 12(h), Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Whether a writ of certiorari was available despite the general availability of an appeal from an order modifying child support.

Disposition

writ_granted