More Categories

Section 46b-46 – (Formerly Sec. 46-39). Notice to nonresident party. Jurisdiction over nonresident for alimony and support

May 15, 2021 | Connecticut, Family Law

(a) On a complaint for dissolution, annulment, legal separation or custody, if the defendant resides out of or is absent from the state or the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown to the plaintiff, any judge or clerk of the Supreme Court or of the Superior Court may make such order of notice as such judge or clerk deems reasonable. After notice has been given and proved to the court, the court may hear the complaint if it finds that the defendant has actually received notice that the complaint is pending. If it does not appear that the defendant has had such notice, the court may hear the case, or, if it sees cause, order such further notice to be given as it deems reasonable and continue the complaint until the order is complied with. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional requirements of chapter 815p in a complaint for custody.
(b) The court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident party as to all matters concerning temporary or permanent alimony or support of children, only if:

(1) The nonresident party has received actual notice under subsection (a) of this section; and
(2) the party requesting alimony meets the residency requirement of section 46b-44.

Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 46b-46

(1949 Rev., S. 7330; P.A. 73-373, S. 9; P.A. 75-276; P.A. 78-230, S. 24, 54; P.A. 91-391, S. 3; P.A. 95-310, S. 1, 9; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-1, S. 52, 75; P.A. 03-19, S. 104.)

Annotations to former section 46-17: Not indispensable that service of notice should be certified by oath of party serving. 23 C. 243. Notice contemplated is one which will be most likely to reach defendant. 133 C. 458. Pertains to divorce only and does not apply to annulment actions. 142 C. 173. Cited. 147 C. 238. Statute authorizes but does not require an order of notice in a divorce action when defendant resides out of or is absent from the state; resort to statute is unnecessary if the service utilized itself satisfies due process. 150 C. 15. Cited. 199 C. 287; 226 Conn. 1. Where there was no service on defendant in the manner directed, the result is not a mere defect or irregularity but a complete failure to effect any service whatever. 4 CS 140. Cited. 14 CS 204. Where defendant had once lived in Stamford but left there before the divorce action was commenced, notice of the action in a Stamford newspaper is not sufficient notice. Id., 321. Annotations to present section: Cited. 178 Conn. 308. Statute permits court to modify a dissolution judgment to require nonresident defendant to pay child support if latter had actual notice of modification proceedings; reference to Subsec. (a) discussed. 199 Conn. 287. Cited. 208 Conn. 329; 222 C. 906. Order of notice requirement is permissive, not mandatory. 226 Conn. 1. Cited. 3 Conn.App. 679; 27 Conn.App. 142; 41 Conn.App. 382; 42 CA 254. Trial court correctly determined that defendant’s contact with Connecticut was sufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him and that exercise of such jurisdiction was reasonable and comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 54 CA 634. Subsec. (a) and Sec. 46b-212d of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act give court jurisdiction over motion to modify an existing alimony order entered in this state with respect to party who is not a resident of this state; under the act, only a tribunal of the state that issues a spousal support order may modify that order. 151 CA 332. Cited. 41 CS 429.