Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ruby

McAULIFFE, Judge. Patricia Ruby’s attempt to place a lien against her former husband's earnings in order to collect child support and ⁴¹⁵ attorney’s fees previously ordered by a Maryland court has generated two separate questions. The first is whether the use of first class mail was sufficient to afford adequate notice of the proceedings to the alleged debtor, a resident of Texas. The second is whether the non-resident employer, The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), has sufficient contacts with this State to justify the exercise of judicial jurisdiction over it in a matter wholly unrelated to those contacts.

I. Patricia and Robert Ruby were married in Maryland in 1970, where they lived together until their separation in 1978. On July 23, 1984, Mrs. Ruby filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, seeking a divorce, custody of their two minor children, child support, and attorney’s fees. She alleged that she and the children continued to live in Maryland, but that her husband had moved to 2300 Timber Lane in Grapevine, Texas, and was employed by Goodyear in that state. Mr. Ruby was personally served with original process in Maryland on the same day the suit was filed.

He did not file an answer or appearance in the case, and an order of default was entered on January 8, 1985. In accordance with Maryland Rule 2-613, and pursuant to a certification of the Defendant’s address furnished by the Plaintiff, the clerk mailed a notice of default to Mr. Ruby at the Timber Lane address in Grapevine, Texas. Mr. Ruby did not reply to the notice, and the case proceeded to an ex parte hearing before a master. On April 18, 1985, a final judgment was entered granting Mrs. Ruby’s prayers for an absolute divorce and custody of the children, and ordering Mr. Ruby to pay $400 per month for child support accounting from August 1, 1984, and $500 for attorney’s fees.

The clerk mailed a copy of the final judgment to Mr. Ruby on the day it was entered. There is no indication in the. record that it was not delivered. ⁴¹⁶ Two months later, alleging that Mr. Ruby had not made any payments, Mrs. Ruby filed a verified petition for a lien on the earnings of her former husband, pursuant to §§ 10-120 thru 10-126 of the Family Law Article, Maryland Code (1984) 1 . The circuit court issued an order directing that a hearing be held on July 19, 1985, and further directing that copies of the order, the petition, and the proposed lien order be served upon Mr. Ruby on or before July 5, 1985. Mrs. Ruby’s attorney thereafter filed a Certificate of Service in the following form: I hereby certify that on the 14th day of June, 1985, a copy of the Show Cause Order dated June 14,1985, with a copy of the Lien Order attached and a copy of the Petition for the requested lien were mailed, postage prepaid, to the Defendant, Robert A. Ruby, 2800 Timber Lane, Apt. 208, Grapevine, Texas; that the envelope had my return address; that said envelope has not been returned and that mail previously addressed to the Defendant at that address has not been returned.

Mr. Ruby did not respond, and following the hearing of July 19, the court issued a lien order directing that Goodyear withhold $550 per month from Mr. Ruby’s wages, and forward those retained earnings to Mrs. Ruby. The order was served on Goodyear’s Maryland resident agent on August 1, 1985. On August 28, Goodyear filed a motion to dismiss the wage lien, contending that Mr. Ruby had not been properly served. Specifically, Goodyear argued that a request for a wage lien constituted a “new or additional claim for relief” within the meaning of Maryland Rule 1-321, and that notice ⁴¹⁷ to Mr. Ruby was therefore required to be served in accordance with the rules for service of original process.

Goodyear also noted that Mr. Ruby, through his Texas attorney, was insisting that Goodyear raise this defense on his behalf. 2 Goodyear’s certificate of service discloses that Goodyear mailed a copy of its motion to Mr. Ruby at the Timber Lane address in Grapevine, Texas. Mrs. Ruby filed a response to the motion, contending that the court had obtained personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ruby and therefore retained continuing jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, and that Mr. Ruby had been given sufficient notice of the proceedings. On October 10, ten days prior to the date scheduled for the hearing of its original motion, Goodyear filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, adding the contention that it could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of a Maryland court for a claim involving its operations in Texas. After the hearing, Judge William H. McCullough found that Goodyear was doing business in Maryland and could properly be brought into a Maryland court as a garnishee.

Additionally, Judge McCullough found that the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County had acquired original jurisdiction over Mr. Ruby, and that the notice given him was sufficient where the proceedings involved no new claim, but only the enforcement of the original order pursuant to the court’s continuing jurisdiction. Goodyear filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, and we issued a writ of certiorari on our own motion, before consideration by that court.

II

Whether viewed from the constitutional perspective of due process or the requirements of Maryland Rule ⁴¹⁸ 1-321, Mrs. Ruby’s request for a wage lien was not an additional claim for relief requiring new in-state service on Mr. Ruby. The right to exercise personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ruby arose when he was served with the original complaint, and extended to all the relief sought by that complaint. Moreover, the enforcement and modification of relief granted pursuant to that complaint remains within the continuing jurisdiction of the circuit court, subject to any due process requirement that the party against whom the modification or enforcement is sought be given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. Glading v. Furman, 282 Md. 200 , 383 A.2d 398 (1978); R. Leflar, American Conflicts Law, § 31 (1977); Restatement (Second) of Conflicts § 26 (1971).

Accordingly, there was no need to again serve Mr. Ruby in Maryland in order to enforce the judgment properly obtained against him. There was, however, a requirement that Mr. Ruby be given notice of the request for an earnings lien, and an opportunity to be heard. Sections 10-121 and 10-122 of the Family Law Article, as they existed at the time this request for a wage lien was filed, required that a show cause order and a copy of the proposed lien order be served on the obligor before the hearing. We shall assume, without deciding, that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution also requires pre-attachment notice to the debt- or under circumstances such as these,' where no judgment has previously been entered, the arrears must be determined, and a determination must be made that the arrears have existed for more than 30 days.

See Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220, 228 , 66 S.Ct. 556, 560 , 90 L.Ed. 635 (1946). Cf. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337 , 89 S.Ct. 1820 , 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969). Accordingly, we examine the question of compliance with the statutory requirement of notice in the light of the assumed existence of a constitutional underpinning for the statute. ⁴¹⁹ Initially, we note that the statute in effect at the time notice was required to be given in this case directed only that the obligor be served with notice, and did not specify the manner of service. 3 Maryland Code (1984) §§ 10-121, 10-122 of the Family Law Article.

An earlier provision in § 10-121 stating that the notice “shall be served as provided for under the Maryland Rules” was deleted in the Code revision process as being unnecessary. See Revisor’s Note to § 10-121, ch. 296 of the Laws of Maryland 1984. There is no Maryland Rule that specifically addresses the manner of service of notice of a request for a child or spousal support earnings lien. Rule 1-321 deals generally with the manner of service of pleadings and papers other than original pleadings, and the manner of service prescribed by section (a) 4 of the rule is consistent with the service made in this case.

That section provides that “service upon ... a party shall be made by delivery of a copy or by mailing it to the address most recently stated in a pleading or paper filed by the ... party, or if not stated, to the last known address.” We note also that in the most nearly comparable situation, involving notice required to be served on a debtor upon garnishment of his or her wages, the manner of service of an important notice concerning the right to contest the garnishment and ⁴²⁰ the availability of state and federal exemptions is by ordinary mail to the debtor’s last known address. Maryland Rule 2-646(d). See generally, Reigh v. Schleigh, 784 F.2d 1191 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 167 , 93 L.Ed.2d 105 (1986). What constitutes a sufficient method of notification in cases involving the exercise of continuing jurisdiction may vary depending upon the circumstances of the case and the particular relief sought.

The objective is essential fairness, and the means employed to effect notice “must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). See also Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 450-51 , 102 S.Ct. 1874 , 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982). In Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, the Supreme Court fashioned a three-factor test to determine the procedures that will be required, including the time and manner of notice that must be given, when a governmental action would deprive an individual of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 .

Although the governmental action in this case clearly threatened a constitutionally protected property interest of Mr. Ruby, we conclude that service of the notice by ordinary mail was sufficient. We note that there was nothing to suggest that Mr. Ruby was a transient individual, or that the address given by Mrs. Ruby was not correct. The court mailed the notice of default to that address in January, 1985, and it was not returned. Similarly, the court ⁴²¹ mailed a copy of the final judgment on April 18, and it was not returned.

The court and Mrs. Ruby could reasonably have anticipated that notice of the request for an earnings lien mailed to Mr. Ruby at the same address less than two months later would be effective. We note also that Goodyear, the admitted employer of Mr. Ruby, used the same address to forward copies of its motions to Mr. Ruby. Finally, we note that although Mr. Ruby has urged Goodyear to present every available defense on his behalf, neither Goodyear nor Mr. Ruby has ever suggested that the notice by ordinary mail was not received. The use of ordinary mail carries with it no guarantee of delivery, but it is an accepted business method of communication, Greene v. Lindsey, supra, 456 U.S. at 455-56 , 102 S.Ct. at 1880 and it is regularly relied upon by the courts of this country in the conduct of extensive litigation.

As Justice Jackson said for the Supreme Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra, 339 U.S. at 319 , 70 S.Ct. at 660 , “[hjowever it may have been in former times, the mails today are recognized as an efficient and inexpensive means of communication.” Other states have recognized the efficacy of ordinary mail as a means of giving notice. See, e.g., Dobkin v. Chapman, 21 N.Y.2d 490 , 289 N.Y.S.2d 161 , 236 N.E.2d 451 (1968); Carter v. Carter, 164 So.2d 219 (Fla.App.1964). See also 62 ALR.2d 544, 554-56.

We repeat,