North Carolina Lawyers Weekly
The defendant-Father’s contacts with Switzerland were limited to short trips consisting of visiting with the plaintiff-Mother and their children and some light tourism, plus calls with the children and coordination with Mother to arrange his informal support for the children. Following the reasoning of Miller v. Kite, 313 N.C. 474 (1985), we uphold the trial court’s determination that the Court of First Instance, Third Chamber, Republic and Canton of Geneva lacked personal jurisdiction over Father.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion under N.C. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
In addition to the personal jurisdiction issue, Mother argues that the trial court should have granted her Rule 60(b) motion on the basis that “[t]he [n]otice of [h]earing mistakenly gave notice of a ‘Hearing to Register Foreign Support Order,” but “[t]he registration . . . had already occurred[.]” This statement, while technically true, is seemingly based on the mislabeling of a hearing rather than any allegation that an actual participant in the trial was operating under a mistake of fact, much less a mutual one. Accordingly, this argument fails.
Gyger v. Clement (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-576-22, 26 pp.) (Hunter Murphy, J.) Appealed from Guilford County District Court (Michelle Fletcher, J.) George Daly for plaintiff; Michelle Connell for defendant. 2022-NCCOA-922
