McVinnie v. Quam

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Jo Anne McVinnie,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Gerald Quam,

Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030569-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 11, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 61

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson

Attorneys: Jo Anne McVinnie, Sandy, Appellant Pro Se

Randall L. Skeen, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on Appellant McVinnie's motion for summary reversal and Appellee Quam's motion for summary affirmance of the district court's dismissal of McVinnie's complaint.

McVinnie contends that this court should summarily reverse because the district court had personal jurisdiction over Quam under Utah's long arm statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-24 (2002). However, in her complaint, McVinnie alleged that Quam committed torts against her between 1981 and 1985, while the parties resided in California. That McVinnie lived in Utah when she was allegedly "emotionally distressed" by her discovery that Quam allegedly committed the torts did not provide the district court with personal jurisdiction over Quam. Because the uncontroverted allegations in McVinnie's complaint, affidavit, and motions filed prior to the dismissal of her complaint do not come within Utah's long arm statute, the district court correctly concluded that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Quam. See Starways, Inc. v. Curry, 1999 UT 50,¶¶5-6, 980 P.2d 204; see also In re W.A., 2002 UT 127,¶14, 63 P.3d 607.

McVinnie also contends that under Utah Code Ann. § 78-45f-201 (2002), the district court had personal jurisdiction to order Quam to submit to a DNA test. However, McVinnie cited this section in her motion for a stay filed after the district court entered its order dismissing McVinnie's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Even if McVinnie had timely and adequately raised jurisdiction under this section, she did not allege sufficient facts supporting jurisdiction under this section.(1)

We therefore affirm.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. We have considered McVinnie's remaining contentions and conclude they are without merit. See, e.g., In re J.N., 2000 UT App 73,¶21, 997 P.2d 345 (noting this court need not address in writing every issue presented on appeal).