WPCT! # VUNa % 0N 0 b  ^ w@f  m 4  0D 0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0d BgU>B)DC AM. D3{U*. 0@XFv~^v AO 0D D/! B7!HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   (}(2}$ y!     XKX `   0  - -hymel v. hymel - opinion  ( ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    }~EbUӀUD < l$3|x(#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G$$$$'dxd<  9p`(Arial $ !  #d#&&   ++   YYY FILED+XApril11,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$     N !#d#&&   $    &X       ݛInaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.2,wedispensewiththerequirementoffurtherbriefingandoralargument.  !#d#&&   $    &X       ݛTenn.Ct.App.R.10(b)provides:8  TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &&          \RA'\  \RA'\7Oqdd7    ̛@ & INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜R),(A1-j|)`  `@R̛& VICTORIAL.HYMEL,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      ) DavidsonCircuit      ) No.96D2426VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019703CV00136LAWRENCEP.HYMEL,JR.,  )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )̛̜@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEMURIELROBINSON,JUDGE̛̜ForthePlaintiff/Appellee:   FortheDefendant/Appellant:StevenM.Moore     P.EdwardSchellNashville,Tennessee    Franklin,Tennessee̛̜@ & AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED &       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE    &@ MEMORANDUMOPINION & Thisinterlocutoryappealinvolvespartieswhohavecommenceddivorceproceedingsintwostates.AfterobtainingadivorceinLouisiana,thehusbandfiledmotionsintheFourthCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingtodismissthewifespendingTennesseedivorcecomplaint.ThetrialcourtdeterminedthattheLouisianadecreewasentitledtofullfaithandcreditbutϜdecidedtoproceedwiththewifesclaimforspousalsupport.Thehusband,withthetrialcourtspermission,seeksthisinterlocutoryappealtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourthassubjectmatterjurisdictionoverthewifesclaim.Wehavedeterminedthataninterlocutoryappealiswarranted, .   ׀thatthetrialcourtsdenialofthehusbandsmotiontodismissforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionshouldbeaffirmedinaccordancewithTenn.Ct.App.R.10(b), /   andthatthecaseshouldberemandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. LawrenceP.Hymel,Jr.andVictoriaL.HymelweremarriedinϢMetarie,LouisianainOctober1988.Followingtheirseparation,Ms.HymelmovedtoTennessee.OnAugust6,1996,Mr.HymelfiledfordivorceintheTwentyNinthJudicialDistrictCourtoftheStateofLouisiana,inandfortheParishofSt.Charles.Twoweekslater,onAugust20,1996,Ms.HymelfiledfordivorceintheFourthCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty.OnOctober17,1996,theLouisianacourtgrantedMr.Hymeladivorceandpermittedhimtouseandoccupythe communitymovablespendingthe partitionofcommunityatafuturedate. Mr.HymelfiledtwomotionstodismissMs.HymelsTennesseecomplaint.Thefirstmotioncontestedthecourtspersonaljurisdictionoverhim.ThesecondmotionassertedthatthetrialcourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionbecauseofthependingLouisianadivorceproceeding.Therecordcontainsnoindicationofthetrialcourtsdispositionofthefirstmotion;however,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonJanuary21,1997,determiningthatithadjurisdictiontoconsiderMs.Hymelsclaimforspousalsupport.OnMarch18,1997,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingMr.Hymelpermissiontopursueaninterlocutoryappeal. Theconceptofsubjectmatterjurisdictionrelatestoacourtslawfulpowerandauthoritytoadjudicateacontroversybroughtbeforeit.Turpinv.ConnerBros.ExcavatingCo.,761S.W.2d296,297(Tenn.1988).ItcanonlybeconferredbytheConstitutionofTennesseeorbylegislativeact.Kanev.Kane,547S.W.2d559,560(Tenn.1977).Tenn.CodeAnn.1610108(1994)clearlyempowersthetrialcourttoheardivorcesandrelateddomesticrelationsdisputes.Likewise,Tenn.CodeAnn.364104(a)(1996)givesthetrialcourtsubjectmatterjurisdictionoverMs.HymelsspousalsupportclaiminlightoftheapparentlyundisputedfactthatshehadbeenaTennesseeresidentforsixmonthsprecedingthefilingofherdivorcecomplaint.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsJanuary21,1997order,denyingMr.ϢHymelsmotiontodismissforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.̀ ThecontrollingissuesinthiscasearetheonesraisedinMr.HymelsfirstmotiontodismissdoesthetrialcourthavepersonaljurisdictionoverMr.Hymeland,ifpersonaljurisdictionexists,shouldthetrialcourtexerciseitsjurisdictionoverMs.Hymelsclaimforspousalsupport.SeeVermillionv.Vermillion,892S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Theseissueshaveapparentlynotbeenaddresseddirectlybythetrialcourt. Acourtcannotorderapartyinadivorceproceedingtopayspousalsupportwithoutfirsthavingpersonaljurisdictionovertheparty.Terrellv.ϢTerrell,192Tenn.317,32122,241S.W.2d411,413(1951);Darbyv.Darby,152Tenn.287,29192,277S.W.894,89697(1925).Unlessanonresidentpartyvoluntarilysubmitstothecourtsauthority,personaljurisdictioncanbeacquiredonlywhentherehasbeenadequatenoticeandwhenthenonresidentpartyhassufficientminimumcontactswiththeforumstate.Millerv.Miller,App.No.86248II,1987WL15143,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.5,1987)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). Ms.HymelhastheburdenofdemonstratingtheexistenceofsufficientcontactsbetweenMr.HymelandTennesseetowarranttheassertionofpersonaljurisdictionoverhim.SeeRoderickv.Roderick,776S.W.2d533,535(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Mr.HymelhassubmittedanaffidavitassertingthatheisalifelongresidentofLouisiana,thatthepartiesweremarriedinLouisiana,andthatthepartiesresidedinLouisianathroughouttheirmarriage.HisaffidavitalsostatesthathehasneverresidedinTennessee,thatheownsnorealestatehere,andthathehasnottransactedbusinesshere.Withoutmore,thesefactsdonotestablishsufficientminimumcontactswarrantingaTennesseecourtsexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoverMr.Hymel.WedonotviewMr.Hymelsagreementconcerningalimonypendenteliteasawaiverofhislackofpersonaljurisdictiondefense. WeaffirmthedismissalofMr.HymelsmotiontodismissforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionandremandthecasetoenablethetrialcourttodeterminewhetherMr.HymelhassufficientcontactswithTennesseetowarrantaTennesseecourtsexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoverhim.Shouldthetrialcourtfindthattherequisitecontactsarelacking,itshouldgrantMr.Hymelsmotiontodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.ShouldthetrialcourtdeterminethatithaspersonaljurisdictionoverMr.Hymel,itshouldthenconsiderwhetheritshouldproceedinlightofthepriorsuitpendinginLouisiana.Wealsotaxthecostsofthisappealequallybetweenthepartiesforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̜CONCUR:________________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S.________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE