Upon the Petition of
FREDERICK J. SHADDOCK
Petitioner,
N. CDCV 400852
And Concerning
OKSANA SHEMET SHADDOCK
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Respondent.
Hearing was held September 10, 2007 concerning the Pre-Answer Motion To Dismiss filed August 16, 2007. Petitioner Frederick J. Shaddock (Frederick) appeared and was represented by his attorney Paul A. Miller. Respondent Oksana Shemet Shaddock (Oksana) appeared telephonically and was represented by her attorney, Steven H. Lytle, who appeared telephonically. [LYTLE MONOPOLIZED THE DISCUSSION AND USED UP ALL THE TIME AVAILABLE. THE JUDGE HAD TO ASK HIM TO GET TO THE POINT]
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Oksana asserts that Frederick's Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage must be dismissed because she filed a Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage in the District Of Columbia on July 24, 2007. [SHE DELAYED SERVING BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT REALLY WANT A DIVORCE, DESPITE ATTORNEY PRESSURE FROM LIOTTA AND LYTLE] Frederick's Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage was filed in Iowa on July 30, 2007. In addition, Oksana alleges that Frederick cannot satisfy the one-year residency requirement of § 598.5, Code of Iowa. [OKSANA'S ATTORNEY THOUGHT THIS UP AND ENCOURAGED HER TO LIE. OKSANA KNOWS FULL WELL THAT FREDERICK HAS BEEN IN IOWA FOR ABOUT 2 YEARS.]
2. Oksana's Exhibit J includes a "Complaint For Limited Divorce" filed by her against Frederick in the Superior Court For The District Of Columbia Family Court on July 24, 2007. [OKSANA HAS NOT LIVED IN DC SINCE JUNE 20, 2007 AND HAD NO RIGHT TO FILE IN DC. SHE EVEN HAD A PENDING RESTRAINING ORDER FROM HER SETTING FOOT ON THE PROPERTY SHE FALSELY STATES TO BE HER ADDRESS]. A copy of the Complaint and Summons was forwarded to Iowa to be served on Frederick. The affidavit of process server indicates that a copy of the documents were left at 806 N. 4th Street, Fairfield, Iowa 52556 on July 31, 2007. [PROCESS SERVER DID NOT PROPERLY SERVE FREDERICK AT HIS ADDRESS 1000 UNIVERSITY MANOR, A28, AND CANNOT EVEN COME UP WITH THE NAME OF ANYONE THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY SERVED AT THE RENTAL HOUSE.]
The North 4th Street, Fairfield, Iowa address may have been [IT WAS AND IS] a rental property at the time and the evidence is not conclusive that Frederick actually received a copy of the service of process of Oksana's District Of Columbia divorce proceedings. [EVEN TO THIS DAY FREDERICK HAS NOT RECEIVED THE PAPERS. OKSANA SERVED HER PAPERS, KNOWING THAT SHE HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED, AND THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR EXISTING DIVORCE CASE. SHE EVEN KNEW THE IOWA CASE NUMBER. SHE THUS MADE A FALSE STATEMENT IN VIOLATION OF A SWORN STATEMENT ON HER PAPERS.]
3. § 598.5(1)(e), Code of Iowa, requires that a petition for dissolution of marriage in Iowa shall: "...state whether or not a separate action for dissolution of marriage or child support has been commenced, and whether such action is pending in any court in this state or elsewhere..." [FREDERICK HAD NO KNOWLEDGE IF OKSANA REALLY FILED OR WAS BLUFFING AS SHE HAD OVER 20 TIMES DURING THE PAST 3 YEARS.]
§ 598.2, The Code, states: "The district court has original jurisdiction of the subject matter of this chapter. Venue shall be in the county where either party resides." [OKSANA DOES NOT LIVE IN DC, AND HAS NO HOME THERE, NOT EVEN A LEASE. SHE HAS TWO ROOMS IN TWO SEPARATE HOMES IN FAIRFIELD IOWA. SHE IS ON THE TITLE ONLY FOR THE FAIRFIELD IOWA HOUSE.]
§ 598.2, The Code, states: "The allegations of the petition shall be established by competent evidence."
4. Frederick has established residency in the State of Iowa sufficient to invoke the Iowa court's jurisdiction to file a petition for the dissolution of marriage. Oksana filed for divorce in the District Of Columbia [WHERE SHE DID NOT LIVE] six days before Frederick filed a dissolution of marriage proceeding in Iowa. Even though Frederick may not have received formal notice of Oksana's District Of Columbia's proceedings, this fact does not control. [YES IT DOES. PAPERS MUST BE PROPERLY SERVED TO BE VALID. ALSO FREDERICK DID NOT RECEIVE THE REQUIRED CERTIFIED MAIL, A REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBSTITUTED SERVICE TO BE COMPLETE.]
5. The court finds that Oksana's Pre-Answer Motion To Dismiss filed August 16, 2007 should be granted. Oksana's pending divorce proceeding in the District Of Columbia precludes an Iowa court's jurisdiction in this proceeding under these circumstances. [OKSANA HAS NO VALID DIVORCE PROCEEDING IN DC].
RULING AND ORDER
IT IS THE RULING AND ORDER OF THE COURT:
6. The Pre-Answer Motion To Dismiss filed August 16, 2007 is granted.
7. The Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage file July 30, 2007 and this cause of action are dismissed.
8. Costs are assessed to petitioner Frederick J. Shaddock
9. Clerk to notify attorneys Miller and Lytle, and the court administrator.
Dated September 12, 2007.
________________________
DANIEL P. WILSON
JUDGE, EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT