ÿWPC¤ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw4å4 - < 0JD 0TŽ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ U,! 0dM U,± U>Ý B)DCD AM‡U*Ô Bþ v~;vÓ¹ D3Œ 0@¿ AOÿÆN 0D D/X B‡˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-BCDDDEDFDGDHÓ€RGav 3|xR2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMay€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€fXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑCLIFFORD€SCOTT€œGOODWIN›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœCheatham›€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€8196ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9512„CH„00547ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|÷5` ç `€€Lß›JUDITH€ANNETTE€œWETZ›€f/k/aà àà à)ÌJUDITH€ANNETTE€œGOODWIN›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellee.à àœ›à à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€œCHEATHAM›€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€ASHLAND€CITY,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€LEONARD€W.€MARTIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌMIKE›€W.€œBINKLEY›Ì150€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌSuite€300ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌATTORNEY€FOR€œPETITIONER/APPELLANT›ÌÌÌœÌJUDITH›€A.€œWETZ€(LANGLEY)›ÌP.O.€Box€584Ìœ105A›€Smith€StreetÌœDannemora›,€New€York€€€12929ÌœRESPONDENT/APPELLEE/PRO€SE›ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇCLIFFORD€SCOTT€œGOODWIN›,à àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àœCheatham›€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àNo.€€8196ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à à01„A„01„9512„CH„00547ÌJUDITH€ANNETTE€œWETZ›€f/k/aà àà à€)ÌJUDITH€ANNETTE€œGOODWIN›,à àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àRespondent/Appellee.à àà àà à€)ÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€captioned€petitioner€has€appealed€from€the€dismissal€of€his€suit€to€enroll€andÏmodify€a€foreign€divorce€decree.ÌÌà àOn€April€4,€1995,€plaintiff€filed€his€ð ðPetition€to€Enroll€Foreign€Decree€of€Divorce€andÏMarital€Dissolution€Agreement€and€Request€to€Establish€Payment€of€Child€Support€by€theÏRespondent.ððÌÌà àThe€petition€alleges€the€following€facts:Ìà àPetitioner€is€a€resident€of€œCheatham›€County,€Tennessee,€and€respondent€is€a€resident€ofÏœDannemora›,€New€York.€€On€May€11,€1989,€the€Circuit€Court€of€Lake€County,€Florida€enteredÏa€divorce€decree€granting€custody€of€two€children€to€petitioner,€but€ordering€no€child€support.€ÏNo€child€support€has€been€subsequently€ordered.€€Respondent€is€able€to€and€should€pay€childÏsupport.ÌÌà àThe€petition€prays:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€(2)€That€after€proper€notice€and€hearing€that€this€CourtÏaccept€and€give€Full€Faith€and€Credit€to€the€Florida€FinalÍJudgment€of€Dissolution€of€Marriage€and€all€subsequentÏpleadings.Ìà8 àà8 à€€(3)€That€at€the€hearing€of€this€cause€an€amount€of€child€supportÏbe€established€for€the€support€and€maintenance€of€the€partiesððÏtwo€minor€children.Ìà8 àà8 à€€(4)€That€at€the€hearing€of€this€cause€the€œRespondent›€be€requiredÏto€purchase€and€maintain€and€keep€in€full€force€and€effect€aÏmajor€medical€and€hospitalization€insurance€policy€for€the€benefitÏof€the€partiesðð€two€minor€children.Ìà8 àà8 à€€(5)€That€at€the€hearing€of€this€cause,€the€Respondent€beÏrequired€to€purchase€and€maintain€a€life€insurance€policy€on€herÏlife€covering€her€financial€obligations€to€be€established€in€thisÏmatter.Ìà8 àà8 à€€(6)€That€at€the€final€hearing€of€this€cause,€Respondent€beÏrequired€to€provide€and€pay€for€the€transportation€of€the€minorÏchildren€to€and€from€visitation.Ìà8 àà8 à€€(7)€That€the€Respondent€be€required€to€pay€the€PetitionerÏattorney€fees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€following€documents€from€the€Florida€œCourt›€are€exhibited€to€the€petition:Ìð ðFinal€Judgment€of€Dissolution€of€Marriageðð€entered€May€16,€1989;€ð ðPetition€for€ModificationÏof€Final€Judgmentðð€filed€by€the€wife€on€February€24,€1992,€seeking€custody€of€children;ÏSummons€issued€for€husband€in€Springfield,€MO;€Answer€of€husband€to€petition;€StipulationÏto€Modification€of€Final€Judgment€executed€by€the€parties€on€April€30,€1992,€containing€theÏfollowing:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à3.€€The€Former€Wife€shall€be€responsible€to€provideÏtransportation€for€the€minor€children€from€the€FormerÏHusbandððs€home€to€her€home€and€the€Former€Husband€shall€beÏresponsible€to€provide€transportation€for€the€return€trip€to€hisÏhome.ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.€€The€Former€Wife€remains€unable€to€pay€child€support€for€theÏbenefit€of€the€minor€children,€and,€accordingly,€she€shallÏcontinue€to€not€be€responsible€for€payment€of€child€support€toÏthe€Former€Husband.ÌÌà8 àà8 à5.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€parties€shall€be€bound€by€the€termsÏset€forth€in€the€Final€Judgment€of€Dissolution€of€Marriage,Ïentered€on€May€11,€1989.ÌÌÓÓœOrder›€entered€by€Florida€Court€in€conformity€with€the€stipulation.ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€contain€a€summons€or€return€thereon,€but€it€must€be€assumed€thatÏthe€respondent€was€served€under€the€ð ðTennessee€Long€Arm€Statute,ðð€for,€on€May€18,€1995,Ïrespondent€made€limited€appearance€for€the€purpose€of€contesting€in€personam€jurisdiction€ofÏrespondent€and€filed€an€unsworn€motion€to€dismiss€on€this€ground.ÌÌà àNo€evidence€was€presented€to€the€Trial€Court€except€the€sworn€petition€and€the€FloridaÏdivorce€decree€duly€certified€in€accordance€with€the€Act€of€Congress€relating€thereto.ÌÌà àThere€is€a€brief€transcript€which€contains€no€testimony,€but€only€a€colloquy€betweenÏcounsel€and€the€Trial€Judge.€€Counsel€stated€that€they€agreed€upon€the€facts,€so€their€statementsÏmay€be€considered€to€be€stipulations€in€lieu€of€evidence.ÌÌà àDuring€said€discussion€between€counsel€and€the€Trial€Judge,€the€following€occurred:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Court:€When€did€they€leave€Tennessee€and€go€on€to€Florida?ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àà8 àMs.€Bennett:€.€.€.€€I€have€down€here€that€September€of€1988€isÏwhen€they€left€œSmyrna›,€Tennessee€and€moved€to€Florida.à8 àà8 àÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:€All€right.€€Now,€then.€€We€know€that€in€early€ðð89Ïthey€got€their€divorce€down€in€Florida.€€Where€did€they€live€inÏ1992€at€the€time€that€the€matter€was€back€before€the€FloridaÏCourt?ÌÌà8 àà8 àMs.€Bennett:€She€was€still€in€Florida.€€He€was,€I€believe,€here€inÏTennessee,€but€Mr.€œBinkley›€could€probably€address€that€better.ÌÌà8 àà8 àMr.€œBinkley›:€Yes,€sir,€he€was.€€He€was€working€for€the€CrackerÏBarrel€Corporation.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:€After€the€divorce€in€May€of€1989,€when€did€one€ofÏthem€leave€the€State€of€Florida€and€which€one€was€it?ÌÌà8 àà8 àMs.€Bennett:€The€husband€left€the€State€of€Florida€and€„„ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:€When?ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àMr.€œBinkley›:€At€the€end€of€May,€right€after€the€divorceÏapparently.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:€With€his€children,€and€the€wife€stayed€in€Florida?ÌÌà8 àà8 àMr.€Bennett:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:€Now,€then.€€Letððs€go€back€to€May€of€ðð89€after€theÏdivorce.€€The€wifeððs€in€Florida.€€He€leaves€and€comes€back€toÏTennessee.€€What€was€her€travel€scenario?€€How€long€did€sheÏstay€in€Florida?ÌÌà8 àà8 àMs.€Bennett:€She€stayed€in€Florida€from€September€of€1988Ïwhen€she€moved€there€until€August€of€1994.€€Then€in€August€ofÏ1994,€she€moved€to€New€York€State.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€oral€ruling€of€the€Trial€Court€was:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€But€I€think€that€is€going€to€have€to€be€done€in€New€York€orÏdown€in€Florida,€one€or€the€other.€€And€I€have€concluded€thatÏthe€fact€that€the€father€lives€here€with€the€children€under€theseÏlaws,€as€I€read€them,€does€not€say€that€we€can€bring€her€„„€whoÏat€least€is€potentially€subject€to€it€„„€and€make€her€come€here€intoÏthis€Court€to€have€that€question€litigated.€€So€I€think€youððveÏeither€got€to€go€back€to€the€court€thatððs€had€the€case€all€along,€orÏyouððve€got€to€go€where€she€is,€one€or€the€other.€€And€IððveÏconcluded€that€to€be€the€law,€and€so€thatððs€the€way€I€rule.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€This€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€on€this€the€œ14th›€day€of€July,Ï1995,€before€the€Honorable€Leonard€Martin,€Judge€of€theÍChancery€Court€for€œCheatham›€County,€Tennessee,€upon€theÏPlaintiffððs€ð ðPetition€to€Enroll€Foreign€Decree€of€Divorce€andÏMarital€Dissolution€Agreement€and€Request€to€EstablishÏPayment€of€Child€Support€by€the€Respondent,ðð€the€limitedÏappearance€filed€by€the€Defendant€and€the€Motion€to€DismissÏfiled€by€the€Defendant,€stipulation€of€the€facts,€briefs€andÏstatements€of€counsel,€from€all€of€which€the€Court€finds€that€theÏCourt€lacks€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€Defendant€as€theÏDefendant€does€not€have€sufficient€minimum€contacts€with€theÏState€of€Tennessee€to€allow€the€modification€of€the€FloridaÏDecree€of€Divorce.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€It€is€therefore€ordered€adjudged€and€decreed€that€the€Petition€toÏEnroll€Foreign€Decree€is€denied.€€The€petition€is€dismissed.€ÏCosts€of€this€cause€are€taxed€to€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Entered€this€œ31st›€day€of€July,€1995.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àà àòò/s/€Leonard€Martin,€Judgeóớ̜ÌÓÓà àOn€appeal,€appellant€presents€for€review€the€following€issue:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhether€the€Tennessee€Courts€have€òòin€personam€óójurisdictionÏover€a€non„resident€spouse€to€establish€child€support€obligationsÏwhere€the€parties€were€married€in€Tennessee,€lived€in€TennesseeÏand€raised€the€two€minor€children€in€Tennessee€for€half€of€theÏmarriage,€relocated€to€another€state€where€divorce€ensued€almostÏimmediately,€and€where€the€custodial€spouse€returned€toÏTennessee€with€the€two€minor€children€immediately€after€theÏdivorce€without€any€objection€of€the€non„resident€spouse€whoÏnow€lives€in€a€third€state.̛̜ÌÓÓà àAppellantððs€argument€restates€the€issue€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€The€question€posed€in€the€instant€case€is€quite€simple:€whetherÏthe€Motherððs€contacts€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€are€sufficientÏsuch€that€the€maintenance€of€a€lawsuit€here€to€determine€whetherÏshe€has€the€ability€to€pay€child€support€offends€notions€of€fairÏplay€and€substantial€justice.€€Phrased€differently,€the€question€isÏwhether€the€Motherððs€due€process€rights€are€violated€byÏrequiring€her€to€defend€against€the€child€support€action€inÏTennessee,€rather€than€in€New€York€or€Florida,€even€though€sheÏlived€here€during€her€marriage€and€chose€this€State€as€the€homeÏfor€her€children.̛̜ÌÓÓà àTitle€20,€Part€2€of€œTCA›€contains€the€ð ðLong€Arm€Statutes€of€Tennessee.ðð€€œTCA›€ðð20„2„214€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òJurisdiction€of€persons€unavailable€to€personalÏservice€in€state€„€Classes€of€actions€to€whichÏapplicable.€„ó ó€(a)€Persons€who€are€nonresidents€of€TennesseeÏand€residents€of€Tennessee€who€are€outside€the€state€and€cannotÏbe€personally€served€with€process€within€the€state€are€subject€toÏthe€jurisdiction€of€the€courts€of€this€state€as€to€any€action€or€claimÏfor€relief€arising€from:Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€The€transaction€of€any€business€within€the€state;Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€Any€tortious€act€or€omission€within€this€state;Ìà8 àà8 à(3)€The€ownership€or€possession€of€any€interest€in€propertyÏlocated€within€this€state;Ìà8 àà8 à(4)€Entering€into€any€contract€of€insurance,€indemnity,€orÏguaranty€covering€any€person,€property,€or€risk€located€withinÏthis€state€at€the€time€of€contracting;Ìà8 àà8 à(5)€Entering€into€a€contract€for€services€to€be€rendered€or€forÏmaterials€to€be€furnished€in€this€state;Ìà8 àà8 à(6)€Any€basis€not€inconsistent€with€the€constitution€of€this€stateÏor€of€the€United€States;Ìà8 àà8 à(7)€Any€action€of€divorce,€annulment€or€separate€maintenanceÏwhere€the€parties€lived€in€the€marital€relationship€œwithin›€thisÏstate,€notwithstanding€one€partyððs€subsequent€departure€fromÏthis€state,€as€to€all€obligations€arising€for€alimony,€custody,€childÏsupport,€or€marital€dissolution€agreement,€if€the€other€party€toÏthe€marital€relationship€continues€to€reside€in€this€state.Ìà8 àà8 à(b)€ð ðPerson,ðð€as€used€herein,€includes€corporations€and€all€otherÏentities€which€would€be€subject€to€service€of€process€if€presentÏin€this€state.à8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àœ(c)›€Any€such€person€shall€be€deemed€to€have€submitted€to€theÏjurisdiction€of€this€state€who€acts€in€the€manner€above€describedÏthrough€an€agent€or€personal€representative.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓà àSubsection€(7)€authorizes€any€ð ðactionðð€ð ðas€to€child€supportðð€ð ðwhere€the€parties€lived€inÏmarital€relationship€within€this€stateðð€ð ðif€the€other€party€to€the€marital€relationship€continues€toÏreside€in€this€state.ððÌÌà àNeither€subsection€(6)€nor€subsection€(7)€is€interpreted€to€grant€long€arm€jurisdiction€toÏmodify€a€Florida€decree€in€respect€to€child€support€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.ÌÌà àIn€an€unpublished€opinion€in€the€case€of€òòMiller€v.€Miller,€óóMiddle€Section€August€5,Ï1987,€this€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€a€similar€suit€to€modify€a€Florida€divorce.€€In€thatÏcase,€the€parties€were€married€in€Georgia€and€moved€to€Florida€where€three€children€were€bornÏand€where€a€divorce€decree€awarded€ð ðshared€custodyðð€and€œordered›€the€father€to€pay€support.€ÏThe€mother€moved€to€Tennessee€with€the€children.€€The€Florida€Court€granted€visitation€withÏthe€children.€€The€Florida€Court€resolved€various€other€disputes€regarding€the€œchildren.€›€œWhile›Ïa€further€petition€was€pending€before€the€Florida€Court,€the€mother€filed€a€suit€in€Tennessee€toÏenforce€support€for€herself€and€children€and€served€long€arm€process€on€the€father.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€mother€relied€upon€ðð20„2„214(a)(6),€quoted€above.€€This€Court€held:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€€This€section€expands€the€jurisdiction€of€Tennesseeððs€courtsÏto€the€full€limit€allowed€by€the€due€process€requirements€ofÏœArticle›€I,€Section€8€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€and€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€ÏòòœShelby›€Mutual€Insurance€Co.€œv.›€Moore,óó€645€œS.W.2d›€242,€244„45€(œTenn.Ct.App›.€1981).€€It€permits€the€courts€of€this€state€toÏassume€personal€jurisdiction€over€a€nonresident€defendant€if€theÏdefendant€has€minimum€contacts€with€Tennessee€such€that€theÏmaintenance€of€a€suit€here€does€not€offend€notions€of€fair€playÏand€substantial€justice.€€òòœMasada›€Investment€Corp.€v.€Allen,óó€697ÏœS.W.2d›€332,€334€(Tenn.€1985).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€adequacy€of€a€nonresidentððs€contacts€with€the€forum€mustÏbe€assessed€on€a€case€by€case€basis€to€determine€whether€theÏrequisite€affiliating€circumstances€are€present.€€òòœKulko›€v.ÏSuperior€Court,óó€436€U.S.€84,€92,€98€œS.Ct›.€1690,€1697€(1978)Ïand€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€254€Ga.€450,€330€œS.E.2d›€706,€709€(1985).€ÏThis€analysis€should€not€be€mechanical€and€should€focusÏprimarily€on€the€defendant,€the€forum,€and€the€nature€of€theÏlitigation.€€òòœHelicopteros›€œNationales›€de€Columbia,€S.A.€v.€Hallóó,Ï466€U.S.€408,€414,€104€œS.Ct›.€1868,€1872€(1984);€òòœCalder›€v.ÏJonesóó,€465€U.S.€783,€788,€104€œS.Ct›.€1482,€1486€(1984);€andÏòòœShaffer›€v.€œHeitner›óó,€433€U.S.€186,€204,€97€œS.Ct›.€2569,€2580Ï(1977).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€It€is€the€quality€and€nature€of€the€defendantððs€contacts€with€theÏforum€that€are€important,€not€the€defendantððs€contacts€with€theÏplaintiff€or€the€plaintiffððs€contacts€with€the€forum.€€òòInternationalÍShoe€Co.€v.€Washingtonóó,€326€U.S.€310,€319,€66€œS.Ct›.€154,Ï160€(1945);€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€254€Ga.€450,€330€œS.E.2d›€706,€709Ï(1985)€and€òòœBasler›€v.€Nelsonóó,€633€œS.W.2d›€491,€493Ï(œTenn.Ct.App›.€1982).€€Considerations€such€as€(a)€the€burden€onÏthe€nonresident€defendant,€(b)€the€interest€of€the€forum€state€inÏapplying€its€own€law,€œ(c)›€the€plaintiffððs€interest€in€obtainingÏconvenient€and€effective€relief,€(d)€the€interstate€judicial€systemððsÏinterest€in€obtaining€the€most€efficient€resolution€ofÏcontroversies,€and€(e)€the€various€statesðð€shared€interest€inÏfurthering€substantive€social€policies€are€secondary.€€òòWorld„Wide€Volkswagen€Corp.€œv.›€Woodsonóó,€444€U.S.€286,€292„94,Ï100€œS.Ct›.€559,€564„65€(1980)€and€òòœSchilz›€v.€Superior€Courtóó,Ï144€Ariz.€65€695€P.œ2d›€1103,€1107€(1985).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€While€the€plaintiffððs€residence€in€the€forum€state€may€enhanceÏthe€defendantððs€own€contacts,€òòœKeeton›€v.€Hustler€Magazine,ÏInc.óó,€465€U.S.€770,€780,€104€œS.Ct›.€1473,€1481€(1984),€theÏplaintiffððs€actions€alone€will€never€be€sufficient€to€establishÏminimum€contacts€between€the€defendant€and€the€forum€state.€ÏThus,€a€plaintiff€cannot,€by€some€unilateral€action,€conferÏjurisdiction€over€a€nonresident€defendant€when€minimumÏcontacts€between€the€defendant€and€the€forum€are€absent.€€òòœKulko›Ïv.€Superior€Courtóó,€436€U.S.€84,€93„94,€98€œS.Ct›.€1690,€1697„1698€(1978);€òòHansen€v.€œDenckla›óó,€357€U.S.€235,€253,€78€œS.Ct›.Ï1228,€1239„40€(1958);€òòœSchilz›€v.€Superior€Courtóó,€144€Ariz.€65,Ï695€P.œ2d›€1103,€1107€(1985);€òòœGoldenhersh›€v.€œFebrey›óó,€711€P.œ2d›Ï717,€719€(œColo.App›.€1985);€and€òòœBarnhart›€v.€œMadvig›óó,€526ÏœS.W.2d›€106,€108„09€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€A€single€act€by€a€nonresident€defendant€may€be€sufficient€toÏcreate€a€substantial€connection€between€the€defendant€and€theÏforum€state.€€òòœMcGee›€v.€International€Life€Insurance€Co.óó,€355ÏU.S.€220,€223,€78€œS.Ct›.€œ199,›€201€(1957).€€However,€a€singleÏor€occasional€act€will€not€suffice€as€a€minimum€contact€if€theÏnature€of€the€act€and€the€circumstances€surrounding€itsÏcommission€create€only€an€attenuated€affiliation€with€the€forumÏstate.€€òòBurger€King€Corp.€v.€œRudzewicz›óó,€471€U.S.€462,€475Ïn.18,€105€œS.Ct›.€2174,€2184€n.18€(1985).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Mrs.€Miller€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€it€would€be€fairÏand€equitable€for€a€court€in€this€State€to€assert€personalÏjurisdiction€over€Mr.€Miller.€€òòCarlson€v.€Carlsonóó,€101€œIll.Dec›.Ï384,€147€œIll.App›.œ3d›€610,€498€œN.E.2d›€708,€710€(1986),€òòœapp›.Ïdeniedóó,€113€Ill.œ2d›€572,€505€œN.E.2d›€351€(1987).€€She€insistsÏthat€Mr.€Miller€has€sufficient€œcontacts›€with€Tennessee€because€heÏhas€entered€Tennessee€to€exercise€his€visitation€privileges€andÏbecause,€on€one€occasion,€he€was€accompanied€by€several€localÏlaw€enforcement€officers€when€he€did€so.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Miller€has€entered€Tennessee€onÏtwo€occasions.€€The€first€was€in€June,€1985€when€Mr.€MillerÏœcame›€to€Tennessee€to€pick€up€the€children€for€the€purpose€ofÏexercising€the€extended€visitation€awarded€by€the€Florida€court.€ÏMr.€Miller€was€accompanied€on€this€occasion€by€severalÏNashville€police€officers€apparently€to€make€sure€that€Mrs.ÏMiller€complied€with€the€Florida€courtððs€visitation€order.€€TheÏsecond€occasion€was€in€August,€1985€when€he€returned€theÏchildren€to€Mrs.€Miller.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€presence€of€Mrs.€Miller€and€her€children€in€Tennessee€isÏthe€result€of€a€unilateral€act€by€Mrs.€Miller.€€Mr.€Miller€took€noÏpart€in€this€decision€and,€in€fact,€opposed€it€by€seeking€to€haveÏMrs.€Miller€held€in€contempt€for€doing€so.€€There€is€no€evidenceÏin€the€record€that€Mr.€Miller€derives€any€personal€or€economicÏbenefit€from€his€children€and€former€wife€living€in€Tennessee.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àœ€The›€secondary€considerations€involving€the€convenience€of€theÏparties,€the€location€of€the€children€and€potential€witnesses,€andÏthe€interests€of€Tennessee€as€the€childrenððs€home€state€do€notÏoutweigh€the€lack€of€contacts€between€Mr.€Miller€andÏTennessee.€€Likewise,€they€do€not€outweigh€Floridaððs€interest€inÏmaintaining€the€integrity€of€one€of€its€courtððs€decrees€involving€aÏmarital€relationship€that€existed€in€Florida€and€children€who€wereÏborn€there.€€The€significance€of€these€considerations€is€alsoÏdiluted€by€the€fact€that€the€Uniform€Reciprocal€Enforcement€ofÏSupport€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„201€œòòet›€seq.óó,€and€theÏUniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„6„201€òòet€seq.óó,€provide€Mrs.€Miller€with€mechanisms€to€obtainÏconvenient€and€effective€relief€in€the€Florida€courts€with€regardÏto€child€support€and€custody€matters.̛̜ÌÓÓà àIn€the€present€case,€the€parties€married€in€Tennessee€in€1983,€left€Tennessee€for€threeÏyears,€returned€for€2€ðð€years,€moved€to€Florida€in€1988,€and€œwere›€divorced€in€Florida€inÏ1989.€€One€of€the€children€was€born€in€Tennessee.€œ€So›€far€as€this€record€shows,€the€mother€hasÏnot€been€in€Tennessee€since€1988.€€She€was€in€Florida€until€1994,€when€she€moved€to€NewÏYork.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€neither€party€has€any€present€relationship€with€Florida.€€TheÏparties€are€subject€to€the€continuing€jurisdiction€and€orders€of€a€Florida€court€in€respect€toÏmatters€arising€out€of€their€divorce.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€the€actions€of€the€parties€in€Tennessee€prior€to€the€divorce€conferÏlong€arm€jurisdiction€upon€Tennessee€œcourts›€to€modify€the€decree€of€the€Florida€court.€ThisÏcourt€does€not€agree.€€All€jurisdictional€authority€vested€in€the€Florida€court€when€the€parties,Ïas€residents€of€Florida€submitted€their€divorce€problems€to€that€œcourt.›ÌÌà àœTCA›€ðð26„6„104€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òEffect€and€treatment€of€authenticated€foreignÏjudgment.€„ó ó€(a)€A€copy€of€any€foreign€judgment€authenticatedÏin€accordance€with€the€acts€of€congress€or€the€statutes€of€thisÏstate€may€be€filed€in€the€office€of€the€clerk€of€any€circuit€orÏchancery€court€of€this€state.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€The€clerk€shall€treat€the€foreign€judgment€in€the€same€mannerÏas€a€judgment€of€a€court€of€record€of€this€state.ÌÌà8 àà8 àœ(c)›€œA›€judgment€so€filed€has€the€same€effect€and€is€subject€to€theÏsame€procedures,€defenses€and€proceedings€for€reopening,Ïvacating,€or€staying€as€a€judgment€of€a€court€of€record€of€thisÏstate€and€may€be€enforced€or€satisfied€in€like€manner.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àUnder€this€statute,€either€party€has€the€right€to€enrollment€of€the€Florida€judgment€inÏTennessee€for€enforcement,€but€not€for€modification.€€Lack€of€minimum€contacts€is€irrelevantÏin€such€a€procedure.€€òòœBiogen›€Distr.€Co.€v.€Tanneróó,€Tenn.€App.€1992,€842€œS.W.2d›€253.€€TheÏpetition€makes€no€request€for€enforcement€of€the€Florida€decree€in€Tennessee.ÌÌà àœTCA›€Title€36,€Chapter€5,€Part€2€is€the€Uniform€Reciprocal€Enforcement€of€Support€ActÏunder€which€the€petitioner€in€the€present€case€may€be€able€to€establish€and€enforce€a€right€ofÏsupport€against€the€non„resident€mother.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€theÏappellant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€any€necessary€further€proceedings.ÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌ›à àAffirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÓӜ̛œÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€œJUDGE›