## Facts

- Ann Carr married Paul Carr in Nevada in 1956; Paul worked in the U.S. Foreign Service and lived abroad with Ann.
- Ann left Paul in 1965 while they were living in Honduras and later settled in New York.
- In 1967, Paul obtained an ex parte Honduran divorce from Ann; Ann did not appear in the proceeding.
- In 1974, Paul married Barbara Carr in Nevada; Barbara was a California resident and had no contacts with New York.
- Paul died in 1975, and Barbara applied for Foreign Service survivor benefits as Paul’s widow.
- Ann sued in New York seeking declarations that (1) the Honduran divorce was invalid and (2) Ann, not Barbara, was the lawful surviving spouse.
- Barbara moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether New York may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident second spouse with no New York contacts in a declaratory judgment action determining competing spousal claims and the validity of a foreign divorce.
2. Whether characterizing the dispute as involving “marital status” permits adjudication without personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.
- New York’s long-arm statute did not authorize jurisdiction because Barbara engaged in no New York-directed conduct.
- Exercising jurisdiction would violate due process because Barbara lacked minimum contacts with New York.
- The action could not be treated as a pure status proceeding because it sought to bind Barbara’s individual rights to benefits; personal jurisdiction over her was required.

## Legal Principles

- In personam jurisdiction over a nonresident requires minimum contacts with the forum such that litigation there is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- New York’s long-arm statute (CPLR 302) requires forum-related acts by the defendant; jurisdiction cannot rest solely on a plaintiff’s domicile or the decedent’s past connections.
- A forum may adjudicate certain status matters based on domicile, but a declaratory action that determines competing private rights to property or benefits against a nonresident defendant is an in personam controversy requiring personal jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

Because the nonresident second spouse had no contacts with New York and the suit sought to determine her personal entitlement to benefits, New York courts could not constitutionally exercise in personam jurisdiction; the declaratory judgment action was dismissed without deciding which marriage was valid.


Carr v. Carr, 46 N.Y.2d 270, 413 N.Y.S.2d 305, 385 N.E.2d 1234 (N.Y. 1978)