usband and wife were married in State A and lived there for 10 years before separating. One month later, the wife permanently moved to State B and immediately filed for divorce in a federal court in State B. The wife claims that she is entitled to $300,000 in alimony. The husband appeared in the action and has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Should the court grant the motion? A. No, because the court has diversity jurisdiction over the case. B. No, because the husband waived a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge by appearing in the case. C. Yes, because state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over this type of action. D. Yes, because the wife did not establish a domicile in State B.
Question
usband and wife were married in State A and lived there for 10 years before separating. One month later, the wife permanently moved to State B and immediately filed for divorce in a federal court in State B. The wife claims that she is entitled to $300,000 in alimony. The husband appeared in the action and has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Should the court grant the motion? A. No, because the court has diversity jurisdiction over the case. B. No, because the husband waived a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge by appearing in the case. C. Yes, because state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over this type of action. D. Yes, because the wife did not establish a domicile in State B.
Solution
The correct answer is C. Yes, because state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over this type of action.
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and divorce cases are typically handled by state courts. This is because family law matters, including divorce and alimony, are generally governed by state law. Therefore, the federal court in State B would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the divorce and alimony dispute. The husband's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction should be granted.
Similar Questions
The state constitution in one state guaranteed the right to marry to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. A political group got a proposition on the ballot, and a majority of the people voted to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The proposition did not affect any of the other rights that same-sex couples may have possessed from existing state law.Persons affected sued the state government for unconstitutionally taking away the rights that they had and doing it for no legitimate purpose, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Will the court grant the requests of the lawsuit and declare the proposition void and reinstate the rights of same-sex couples to marry?Yes, under the due process clause no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.Yes, because under the Fourth Amendment it would be an illegal interference against the right of privacy guaranteed to everyone.No, because the people voted to take a provision out of the existing constitution and when that is done by public vote it cannot be altered.No, because the ballot proposition was properly placed on the ballot and all statutory procedures were followed, thus precluding the courts from taking a
Alimony and maintenance payments only applies to divorces that came into effect before 21 March 1962.Question 14Select one:TrueFalse
Motions generally require court hearings.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse
Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
A person who take as proceedings against the accused on the behalf of the state is the __________.A.judgeB.lawyerC.plantiffD.prosecutor
Upgrade your grade with Knowee
Get personalized homework help. Review tough concepts in more detail, or go deeper into your topic by exploring other relevant questions.