2013 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 46b - Family Law
Chapter 815j - Dissolution of Marriage, Legal Separation and Annulment
Section 46b-46 - (Formerly Sec. 46-39). Notice to nonresident party. Jurisdiction over nonresident for alimony and support.

(a) On a complaint for dissolution, annulment, legal separation or custody, if the defendant resides out of or is absent from the state or the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown to the plaintiff, any judge or clerk of the Supreme Court or of the Superior Court may make such order of notice as such judge or clerk deems reasonable. After notice has been given and proved to the court, the court may hear the complaint if it finds that the defendant has actually received notice that the complaint is pending. If it does not appear that the defendant has had such notice, the court may hear the case, or, if it sees cause, order such further notice to be given as it deems reasonable and continue the complaint until the order is complied with. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional requirements of chapter 815p in a complaint for custody.

(b) The court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident party as to all matters concerning temporary or permanent alimony or support of children, only if: (1) The nonresident party has received actual notice under subsection (a) of this section; and (2) the party requesting alimony meets the residency requirement of section 46b-44.

(1949 Rev., S. 7330; P.A. 73-373, S. 9; P.A. 75-276; P.A. 78-230, S. 24, 54; P.A. 91-391, S. 3; P.A. 95-310, S. 1, 9; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-1, S. 52, 75; P.A. 03-19, S. 104.)

History: P.A. 73-373 substituted complaints “for dissolution or annulment of marriage or for legal separation” for complaints “for divorce”; Sec. 46-17 transferred to Sec. 46-39 in 1975; P.A. 75-276 added Subsec. (b) re court’s jurisdiction over nonresident party in matters concerning alimony or support; P.A. 78-230 rephrased provisions and substituted “defendant” for “adverse party”; Sec. 46-39 transferred to Sec. 46b-46 in 1979 and reference to Sec. 46-35 renumbered to reflect its transfer; P.A. 91-391 amended Subsec. (a) by adding “or custody” after “legal separation” and adding “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional requirements of chapter 815o in a complaint for custody”; (Revisor’s note: In 1995 the words “to all”, which were omitted inadvertently during the preparation of the 1979 revision, were reinstated editorially by the Revisors in Subsec. (b) after the words “party as”); P.A. 95-310 deleted Subsec. (b)(3) requiring both parties’ domicile in state immediately prior to or at time of separation, effective January 1, 1996; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-1 amended Subsec. (b)(2) by deleting “or support of children”, effective January 1, 1998; P.A. 03-19 made technical changes in Subsec. (a), effective May 12, 2003.

Not indispensable that service of notice should be certified by oath of party serving. 23 C. 243. Notice contemplated is one which will be most likely to reach defendant. 133 C. 458. Pertains to divorce only and does not apply to annulment actions 142 C. 173. Cited. 147 C. 238. This statute authorizes but does not require an order of notice in a divorce action when the defendant resides out of or is absent from the state. Resort to the statute is unnecessary if the service utilized itself satisfies due process 150 C. 15. Cited. 199 C. 287. Cited. 226 C. 1.

Where there was no service on the defendant in the manner directed, the result is not a mere defect or irregularity but a complete failure to effect any service whatever. 4 CS 140. Cited. 14 CS 204. Where defendant had once lived in Stamford but left there before the divorce action was commenced, notice of the action in a Stamford newspaper is not sufficient notice. Id., 321.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 199 C. 287. Cited. 208 C. 329. Cited. 222 C. 906. Order of notice requirement is permissive, not mandatory. 226 C. 1.

Cited. 27 CA 142. Cited. 41 CA 382. Trial court correctly determined that defendant’s contact with Connecticut was sufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him and that exercise of such jurisdiction was reasonable and comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 54 CA 634.

Cited. 41 CS 429.

Subsec. (a):

Cited. 178 C. 308.

Cited. 42 CA 254.

Subsec. (b):

Statute permits court to modify a dissolution judgment to require nonresident defendant to pay child support if latter had actual notice of modification proceedings. Reference to Subsec. (a) of statute discussed. 199 C. 287.

Cited. 3 CA 679. Cited. 42 CA 254.