WPCU$ # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 UP@ 0l 0D 0J@ 0T 0^ < 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% 0@ D3 B AU>U 6B)DC% AOhU* yB-zov~vg 0K:" D+" AO"" 0D# D/ $ B8$HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EDDDӀ$f|$3|x&&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  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("$    ҁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5++++'dxd d)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd'B2C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#/  44   YYY FILED4X July30,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.4AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#/   $       /0T.C.A.202214provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 (a)PersonswhoarenonresidentsofTennesseeandresidentsofTennesseewhoareoutsidethestateandcannotbepersonallyservedwithprocesswithinthestatearesubjecttothejurisdictionofthecourtsofthisstateastoanyactionorclaimforreliefarisingfrom:@ *** 8 (6)AnybasisnotinconsistentwiththeconstitutionofthisstateoroftheUnitedStates;@ *** o !#d#/   $       00Sincethiscasewasdisposedof onthepapers,i.e.,pursuanttothesummaryjudgmentprocedure,therewasnoneedtofileatranscriptorstatementoftheevidence. 8 !#d#/   $       00Thefactsdonothavetobeinadmissibleform.See Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,21516(Tenn.1993).Thus,whileaverifiedpetitionandaffidavitarenotadmissibleassuch,thematerialsetforthinthosedocumentscanbeconsideredonsummaryjudgmentifthepersontestifyingunderoath,ineachinstance,iscompetenttotestifytothosefactsincourt. p !#d#/   $       00SincethePaternityEvaluationReportisadmissible,seeT.C.A.247112(b)(2)(A),wehaveconsideredittotheextentthatitisrelevanttothequestionnowbeforeus.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ( $ Figure  1  'dxd'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . /  P 0\RA'\7F1XXdd7R352A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@ ATKNOXVILLEINTHEMATTEROF:    )C/ANO.03A019804JV00119̜ DESTINIJANEISAACSON,  )       )̜ Aminorunder18yearsofage,)       )       )       )STACEYL.ISAACSON,    )       )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      PetitionerAppellant, )LOUDONCOUNTYJUVENILECOURT           )       )v.       )       )       )       )MARKL.FENTON,    )       )HONORABLEJOHNO.GIBSON,  RespondentAppellee. )JUDGEForAppellant     ForAppelleeSTANLEYF.LaDUKE    RONALDJ.ATTANASIOKnoxville,Tennessee   Hurley,Sharp&Attanasio       Knoxville,Tennessee@    OPINION00XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.    Inthispaternitycase,thetrialcourtgrantedtheputativefathersmotiontodismiss.Insodoing,thecourtstatedthatit [did]notfeelthatavisitoften...daysbytheϜ[respondent]to[Tennessee]wouldgivethisstatethepowertorequirehimtostandtrialinthiscause,whereserviceofprocesswaseffectedonhimpursuanttoT.C.A.202214, 6   ׀theϜTennesseeLongArmStatute.Thepetitionerappealed,contendingthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatitdidnothaveinpersonamjurisdictionovertherespondent.  Inconnectionwiththisappeal,thepetitionerappellant,StaceyL.Isaacson,fileda StatementoftheEvidenceandProceedings( Statement),apparentlybaseduponaperceivedneedtocomplywithRule24,T.R.A.P. 7   ׀ThatStatementcontainsthisintroductorysentence: 8 OnOctober8,1997,therewasahearingupontherecord:(1)PetitionersswornPetitionforPaternity,(2)issuedSummonsreturnedserved,(3)PetitionersReturnofServiceAffidavit,(4)RespondentsMotiontoDismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction,supportingAffidavit,andBrief.ItisclearfromMs.IsaacsonsStatementthatthetrialcourtdidnothearanyoraltestimony.TheStatementisbasicallyarecitationofcounselsarguments;however,itdoescontainthefollowingcommentsdescribingthematerialconsideredbythetrialcourt: 8 The[trialjudge]listenedtothestatementsandargumentsfrombothattorneysandinterrogatedbothattorneys.HereferredtothePetitionforPaternityandattachedPaternitytestingresults,whichwereconsideredasevidence;thegeographicalhistoryofthePetitioner,Respondent,andchild;thatthePetitioner,Respondent,andchildlivedinNorthCarolina;thatthelaboratoryresultsindicatedRespondentwasthefatherofthechild;andthatRespondentspentten(10)daysinTennesseewhenhevisitedthechild.  Inrulingontherespondentsmotion,thetrialcourtϜobviouslyconsidered mattersoutsidethepleadings.SeeRule12.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Thus,wetreatthedecreebelowasoneforsummaryjudgment. Id .Theissuebeforeusisthesameastheissuebeforethetrialcourt:Doestherecordreflectundisputedmaterialfactsconclusivelyestablishingtherespondentsdefensethatthetrialcourtlackedinpersonamjurisdictionoverhim?See Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,215n.5(Tenn.1993).TheϜrespondent,asthemovingparty,hadtheburdenofpresentingfacts,admissibleinevidence, 8   כtomakeoutthegroundofhismotion. Id .  ThechildinquestionDestiniJaneIsaacson(DOB:March25,1987)wasconceivedoutsidetheStateofTennessee.ShewasborninDenver,Colorado.Afterthat,shelivedwithherϜmotherthepetitionerinthefollowingstates,intheordershown:inArizona,Alaska,NorthCarolina,Texas,againinAlaska,andfinallyinLoudonCounty,Tennessee.ShemovedtothelastlocationinFebruary,1996.  IntheApril/May,1996,timeframe,thepartiesandtheirchildsubmittedtotests,apparentlyintheStateofNorthCarolina,thatledtotheissuanceofaPaternityEvaluationReportbyGeneticDesign,Inc.,ofGreensboro,NorthCarolina.Thatreportreflectsthattheprobabilityofrespondentspaternityis99.98%. 9   כ  TheverifiedpaternitypetitionfiledbyMs.Isaacsonindicatesthattherespondents lastknownaddress[was]...Shelton,Washington.𛀀ThepetitionalsostatesthattheϜrespondent spentten...daysinLoudonCounty,Tennessee,duringMayandJuneof1997,duringhisvisitationwiththechild.  TherespondentsubmittedhisaffidavitinsupportofhisϜmotion.Thataffidavitcontainsthefollowingstatements: 8 ThatIamovereighteen(18)yearsofageandhavepersonalknowledgeofallmattersstatedherein. 8 ThatIhavevisitedtheStateofTennesseeonone(1)occasion,thatbeinginMay/Juneof1997foraperiodofapproximatelyeight(8)days. 8 ThatduringmystayIalsovisitedAtlanta,Georgiaforapproximatelytwo(2)days. 8 Otherthanthesinglebriefvisitsetforthabove,IhavenothadanycontactwiththeStateofTennessee.Thepetitionerdidnotfileanyfurthermaterialinresponsetotherespondentsaffidavit.  WemustdecideiftherespondentsonevisittoTennesseeissufficienttopermitaTennesseecourttoexerciseϜpersonaljurisdictionoverhiminthispaternitycase.  ThepetitionercontendsthattherespondentsonevisitisasufficientcontactwiththeStateofTennesseetopermittheϜLoudonCountyJuvenileCourttoexerciseinpersonamjurisdictionoverhim.ShereliesuponthatportionoftheTennesseeLongArmStatutethatauthorizesacourtofthisstatetoexercisepersonaljurisdictionoveradefendant astoanyactionorclaimforreliefarisingfrom:...(6)[a]nybasisnotinconsistentwiththeconstitutionofthisstateoroftheUnitedStates;...,T.C.A.Ϝ202214(a)(6).ShealsoreliesuponthefollowinglanguageofT.C.A.362307(b),whichisapartofthepaternitystatutes: 8 AnyminimumcontactrelevanttoachildbeingbornoutofwedlockthatmeetsconstitutionalstandardsshallbesufficienttoestablishthejurisdictionofthecourtsofTennesseeovertheparentsforanactionunderthischapter.  ThelawregardingpersonaljurisdictionisstatedinϜcapsuleformintheSupremeCourtcaseof Landersv.Jones ,872S.W.2d674(Tenn.1994): 8 PersonaljurisdictionofnonresidentdefendantsmaybeobtainedbyserviceofprocessundertheTennesseeLongArmStatute(Tenn.CodeAnn.202214(a))if,andonlyif,thenonresidentdefendanthassuchminimumcontactswiththisstatethatmaintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffend traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice. InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington ,326U.S.310,316,66ϜS.Ct.154,158,90L.Ed.95(1945); J.I.CaseCorp.v.Williams ,832S.W.2d530,531(Tenn.1992). Landers, at675.WhileT.C.A.362307(b),asquotedinpertinentportionabove,wasenactedsubsequenttothe Landers case,itisclearthatitdoesnot,andcouldnot,expandtheinpersonamjurisdictionofourcourtsbeyondtheconstitutionalboundarysetforthin Landers .  Therequirementthattherebeminimumcontactsbetweenadefendantandtheforumprotectsanindividualslibertyinterestinnotbeingsubjectedtothebindingjudgmentofaforumwithwhichheorshehasestablishednomeaningfulcontacts,ties,orrelations. BurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz ,471U.S.462,47172,105S.Ct.2174,218182(1985).  Aspreviouslyindicated,thepetitionerinthiscaserelieduponT.C.A.202214(a)(6)toobtainserviceofprocessontherespondent.ThiscodesectionexpandsthejurisdictionofTennesseescourtstothefullextentpermittedbythedueprocessrequirementsofArticleI,Section8oftheConstitutionofTennesseeandtheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution. ShelbyMutualInsuranceCo.v.Moore ,645S.W.2d242,24445(Tenn.App.1981).  Theadequacyofanonresidentscontactswiththeforummustbeassessedonacasebycasebasistodeterminewhethertherequisitecircumstancesarepresent. Kulkov.SuperiorCourt ,436U.S.84,92,98S.Ct.1690,1697(1978)and Smithv.Smith ,254Ga.450,330S.E.2d706,709(1985).Thisanalysisisnottobeundertakeninamechanicalfashion;rather,itmustfocusprimarilyonthedefendant,theforum,andthenatureofthelitigation. HelicopterosNacionalesdeColumbia,S.A.v.Hall ,466U.S.408,414,104S.Ct.1868,1872(1984); Calderv.Jones ,465U.S.783,788,104S.Ct.1482,1486(1984);and Shafferv.Heitner ,433U.S.186,204,97S.Ct.2569,2580(1977).  Itisthequalityandnatureofadefendantscontactswiththeforumthatareimportant,notthelatterscontactswiththeplaintiffortheplaintiffscontactswiththeforum. InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington ,326U.S.310,319,66S.Ct.154,160(1945); Smithv.Smith ,254Ga.450,330S.E.2d706,709(1985); Baslerv.Nelson ,633S.W.2d491,493(Tenn.App.1982).Considerationssuchas(a)theburdenonthenonresidentdefendant,(b)theinterestoftheforumstateinapplyingitsownlaw,(c)theplaintiffsinterestinobtainingconvenientandeffectiverelief,(d)theinterstatejudicialsystemsinterestinobtainingthemostefficientresolutionofcontroversies,and(e)thevariousstatessharedinterestinfurtheringsubstantivesocialpoliciesaresecondary. WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson ,444U.S.286,29294,100S.Ct.559,56465(1980)and Schilzv.SuperiorCourt ,144Ariz.65,695P.2d1103,1107(1985).  Whileaplaintiffsresidenceintheforumstatemayenhancethedefendantsowncontacts, Keetonv.HustlerMagazine,Inc. ,465U.S.770,780,104S.Ct.1473,1481(1984),theplaintiffsactionsalonewillneverbesufficienttoestablishminimumcontactsbetweenthedefendantandtheforumstate.Thus,aplaintiffcannot,bysomeunilateralaction,conferjurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantwhenminimumcontactsbetweenthedefendantandtheforumareabsent. Kulkov.SuperiorCourt ,436U.S.84,9394,98S.Ct.1690,16971698(1978); Hansenv.Denckla ,357U.S.235,253,78S.Ct.1228,123940(1958); Schilzv.SuperiorCourt ,144Ariz.65,695P.2d1103,1107(1985); Goldenhershv.Febrey ,711P.2d717,719(Colo.App.1985);and Barnhartv.Madvig ,526S.W.2d106,10809(Tenn.1975).  Asingleactbyanonresidentdefendantmaybesufficienttocreateasubstantialconnectionbetweenthedefendantandtheforumstate. McGeev.InternationalLifeInsuranceCo .,355U.S.220,223,78S.Ct.199,201(1957).However,asingleoroccasionalactwillnotsufficeasaminimumcontactifthenatureoftheactandthecircumstancessurroundingitscommissioncreateonlyanattenuatedaffiliationwiththeforumstate. BurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz ,471U.S.462,475n.18,105S.Ct.2174,2184n.18(1985).  Inthiscase,wearedealingwithasolitaryvisittoTennessee.Asthepetitionerpointsout,itisareasonableinferencefromthefactsbeforeusthatwhentherespondentvisitedthisstate,heknewthattherewasastrongprobabilitythatthepetitionerschildwashis;butthisdoesnotchangethefactthatwearedealingwithonlyonevisit.  Wehaveheldthatvisitstothisstatetoexercisevisitationarenotsufficienttovestacourtwithinpersonamjurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantinasituationwhereaplaintiffisattemptingtodomesticateand/orenforceaforeigndivorcejudgmentinthisstate.See Millerv.Miller ,1987WL15143(Tenn.App.atNashville,August5,1987); Turnerv.Turner ,1994WL677592(Tenn.App.atJackson,December6,1994).Thisissomewhatanalogoustoapaternitycaseinthatbothactionsseektoimposepersonalobligationsonaparent.  WefindandholdthattherespondentsoneshortvisittoTennessee,standingalone,doesnotsatisfytheconstitutionalrequirementofminimumcontacts.Weacceptastruebecauseitisnotcontrovertedintherecordthatthisistheonlycontactthattherespondenthadwiththisstate.Obviously,theunderlyingbasisforthispaternityactiontheallegedfatheringofthechildinquestiondidnotariseoutofthissolitary,postbirthcontact.Asfarasweknow,therewasnothingmoretothevisitthanappearsonthefaceoftherecord,i.e.,therespondentcametothisstate,visitedthesubjectchildtoanextentnotshownintherecord,andthenvisitedAtlantafortwodaysasapartofthetriptoTennessee.IftherewasmoretotherespondentsvisittoTennesseethanappearsfromtheverifiedpetitionandtherespondentsaffidavit,itwasthepetitionersresponsibilitytocomeforthwiththesefactsoncetherespondentpresentedverifiedfactstosupporthisclaimthatthetrialcourtlackedinpersonamjurisdictionoverhim. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215.  WebelievethattherespondentscontactwithTennesseeisan attenuatedaffiliationwiththisstate.See BurgerKingCorp. ,471U.S.462,475n.18.WecannotsaythattherespondentscontactissuchthatthisWashingtonStateresidentcouldhaveorshouldhave reasonablyanticipate[d]beinghaledintocourtinTennessee.See WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson ,444U.S.at297.  Wefindnoerrorinthegrantofsummaryjudgmentinthiscase.  Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedwithcostsonappealtaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.