## Facts

- Cassandra Burgess-Muckle, a California resident, filed a San Diego County action to dissolve an 11-year marriage and sought spousal support and division of alleged community property, including two parcels of real property in Georgia.
- Andrew Muckle, the nonresident spouse, declared he had been domiciled in Georgia since December 1998, where he lived, worked, paid taxes, held a driver’s license, and was registered to vote.
- The parties met and married in Georgia (1989) and lived at different times in Georgia and California, with repeated separations and reconciliations; they had no children.
- While the parties were living in California, Andrew purchased a Georgia house in July 1998 in his name; he returned to Georgia to live there in December 1998, and Cassandra later joined him.
- In spring 2000, Cassandra returned to California and lived in a trailer Andrew bought; she later sold it and kept the proceeds.
- Cassandra served Andrew in Georgia by substituted service around August 21, 2001.
- Andrew specially appeared and moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively sought dismissal for forum non conveniens).
- The superior court denied the motion to quash, relying heavily on Cassandra’s supplemental assertions that Andrew had worked in California for about 10 years, received California workers’ compensation benefits, and used some of those funds to buy the Georgia home.
- No competent evidence was produced to support those supplemental assertions.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a California court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a spouse domiciled in Georgia since 1998 in a dissolution proceeding seeking spousal support and division of Georgia real property.
2. Whether a trial court may base a minimum-contacts finding on unsupported factual assertions rather than competent evidence.
3. Whether alleged past California employment and workers’ compensation activity can supply general or specific jurisdiction for the dissolution-related claims on the record presented.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted Andrew’s petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held California could not, consistent with due process, exercise personal jurisdiction over Andrew on the record presented.
- The court directed the superior court to vacate its order denying the motion to quash and to enter a new order granting the motion to quash service of summons.

## Legal Principles

- Due process permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident only if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- General jurisdiction requires contacts that are substantial, continuous, and systematic; past residence or past employment, without ongoing ties, is ordinarily insufficient.
- Specific jurisdiction requires a substantial connection between the defendant’s forum-related conduct and the claims asserted; attenuated links between alleged forum activity and out-of-state property or support claims do not suffice on an undeveloped record.
- The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden to present competent evidence of jurisdictional facts; courts may not rest jurisdictional findings on unsupported allegations.
- Mandate relief is appropriate to prevent a court from exercising personal jurisdiction where the defendant’s right not to be compelled to litigate in an improper forum would not be adequately protected by appeal after final judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that California lacked personal jurisdiction over a Georgia-domiciled spouse in a dissolution action seeking support and division of Georgia property, particularly where the asserted California contacts were historical and unsupported by evidence, and ordered the trial court to grant the motion to quash.


Muckle v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)