## Facts

- Ken Kimura and Fumi Kimura, both Japanese citizens, married in Japan in 1965, had two children, and lived apart from September 1973.
- Ken moved to the United States in 1986 for medical employment, obtained permanent resident status in 1987, and later took a pediatric surgeon position in Iowa.
- Fumi remained in Japan, had never been to Iowa, and had no contacts with the state.
- Ken filed for dissolution in Iowa in December 1988, alleging satisfaction of Iowa’s statutory residency requirement.
- Because Fumi could not be personally served in Iowa, notice was mailed to her in Japan and published in Iowa.
- Fumi entered a special appearance and moved pre-answer to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to satisfy the residency statute, and forum non conveniens in favor of Japan.
- The district court found the residency requirement met, dissolved the marriage, and declined to decide alimony or property division due to lack of personal jurisdiction over Fumi.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage based on the bona fide domicile of only one spouse when the other spouse has no contacts with Iowa.
2. Whether the petitioner satisfied Iowa Code § 598.6’s residency requirement for dissolution, including that residency was not solely for obtaining a divorce.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss or stay the dissolution action on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Japan.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree.
- The court held that one spouse’s bona fide Iowa domicile provides a constitutional basis for jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage, even if the other spouse lacks Iowa contacts.
- The court held the record supported Ken’s satisfaction of Iowa Code § 598.6’s residency requirement.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting forum non conveniens.
- The court approved limiting relief to dissolution of marital status and withholding adjudication of financial incidents of marriage absent personal jurisdiction over Fumi.

## Legal Principles

- A state may grant a dissolution of marriage based on the bona fide domicile of one spouse; adjudication of marital status does not require minimum contacts by the nonresident spouse.
- Minimum-contacts due process analysis primarily governs in personam adjudications imposing personal obligations; it does not control a court’s authority to determine marital status grounded in domicile.
- Under divisible divorce, a court may dissolve the marriage yet lack authority to impose alimony, property division, or other personal obligations on a nonresident spouse without personal jurisdiction.
- Iowa Code § 598.6’s residency requirement is satisfied by evidence showing genuine residence and intent to remain; residency is not defeated by the existence of divorce as a motive unless residence is solely for that purpose.
- Forum non conveniens in dissolution actions is discretionary; a court may retain a case when the forum has a legitimate interest in providing a dissolution remedy to its domiciliaries and the decree is limited to status where personal jurisdiction is absent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an Iowa dissolution granted on the petitioner’s bona fide Iowa domicile, reaffirming that marital-status jurisdiction rests on domicile rather than the nonresident spouse’s minimum contacts, while applying divisible divorce to bar ancillary financial orders absent personal jurisdiction and finding no abuse of discretion in refusing dismissal for forum non conveniens.


In re Marriage of Kimura, 471 N.W.2d 869 (Iowa 1991)