## Facts

- Lisa Gaboury (“Wife”) met Christopher Gaboury (“Husband”) online while Wife lived in Canada and Husband lived in Texas.
- The parties later moved to Pennsylvania and married there.
- They rented housing in Pennsylvania for about 32 months.
- The couple then moved to Wisconsin, where they lived together as spouses.
- The following year, the parties separated.
- Wife moved back to Pennsylvania; Husband stayed in Wisconsin.
- The parties had no children.
- By the time Wife sued, all marital assets were located in Wisconsin.
- Wife filed a divorce action in Pennsylvania that sought dissolution of the marriage and asserted ancillary economic claims, including alimony and equitable distribution of marital property (and related economic relief).
- The trial court granted the divorce but dismissed Wife’s economic claims after concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Husband, who was living in Wisconsin and had no continuing ties to Pennsylvania sufficient for an in personam judgment.
- Wife appealed the dismissal of the economic claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a Pennsylvania court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident spouse, consistent with Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute and due process, to adjudicate ancillary economic claims (such as alimony and equitable distribution) when the spouse lives in another state and the marital assets are located there.
2. Whether Pennsylvania may dissolve the marriage based on Wife’s Pennsylvania domicile while declining to decide economic claims for lack of in personam jurisdiction over Husband.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.
- Pennsylvania could enter a divorce decree terminating the marriage based on Wife’s domicile in Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania lacked personal jurisdiction over Husband to decide Wife’s economic claims, so dismissal of those claims was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A court may have authority to change marital status (divorce) based on one spouse’s domicile even if it lacks personal jurisdiction over the other spouse for money-related obligations; divorce and economic incidents can be treated separately.
- A court may impose personal obligations (e.g., alimony, property distribution orders, fees) only if it has in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.
- Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute reaches nonresidents only to the extent allowed by federal due process; due process requires minimum contacts showing the defendant purposefully established forum ties and could reasonably expect to be sued there.
- A plaintiff’s unilateral return to Pennsylvania does not create the defendant’s minimum contacts with Pennsylvania.
- Past residence in Pennsylvania and marrying in Pennsylvania, without ongoing forum ties at the time of suit, do not by themselves supply sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction for ancillary economic claims, especially where the last marital domicile and marital assets are in another state.

## Conclusion

*Gaboury v. Gaboury* applies the “divisible divorce” concept: Pennsylvania could dissolve the marriage because Wife was domiciled in Pennsylvania, but it could not adjudicate alimony, equitable distribution, or other ancillary economic relief against Husband because he lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania and the marital assets were located in Wisconsin.


Gaboury v. Gaboury, 988 A.2d 672 (2009)