Maryland Family Law Maryland family law opinions and commentary
RICHMOND, VA — A trial court did not have personal jurisdiction to enter a civil contempt order against an ex-husband when the ex-wife could not demonstrate that she made reasonably diligent efforts to personally serve him or that such efforts would have been futile, the Court of Appeals of Virginia has ruled, reversing judgment.
Although she knew that her ex-husband, Sasimohan Motaparthy, was in India caring for his father, Keerthi Priya Ravi retained a private process server to post a show cause order on his front door. She did not attempt to serve him in India, nor did she mail him a copy of the rule to show cause.
When he did not appear for the show cause hearing, Ravi told the court he had been served and was aware of the proceeding. The trial court entered an order finding Motaparthy in civil contempt.
Motaparthy later filed a motion asking the trial court to vacate its contempt order on the grounds that he was not properly served, but the motion was denied.
The appeals court reversed.
“Nothing in Ravi’s assertions demonstrate that she could not effectuate — or at least attempt to effectuate — in-person service on Motaparthy,” Judge Richard Y. AtLee Jr. wrote in an unpublished opinion. “[H]er attempts to provide Motaparthy with notice were not ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [him] of the pendency of the action and afford [him] an opportunity to present [his] objections.’”
Judges Vernida R. Chaney and David Bernhard joined the eight-page opinion in Motaparthy v. Ravi (VLW 026-7-227).
Richmond attorney Craig W. Sampson of Barnes and Diehl said the decision provides an important reminder.
“Specifically with respect to contempt proceedings, there needs to be some diligent efforts to obtain service and document them,” he said.
Neither attorney for the parties — Ra Hee Jeon of Pender & Coward in Virginia Beach, who represented Ravi, and Oliver T. Ward of the Law Office of Rachel Yates in Richmond, who represented Motaparthy — responded to requests for comment.
Show cause order
In October 2024, the trial court entered a final decree granting a divorce between Motaparthy and Ravi. The final decree ordered Motaparthy to sell certain real property, divide the proceeds as part of equitable distribution and make certain payments by Nov. 8, 2024.
Ravi petitioned the trial court on Nov. 14, 2024, to issue a rule requiring Motaparthy to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the final decree’s terms.
Motaparthy was in India caring for his father from August 2024 through Dec. 16, 2024, and he notified Ravi of the trip in August.
Ravi initially attempted to serve the petition upon the attorney who represented Motaparthy in the divorce proceedings, but counsel notified Ravi that he no longer represented Motaparthy.
She then retained a private process server who posted the petition to the front door of Motaparthy’s Virginia Beach residence. Ravi did not mail Motaparthy a copy of the petition.
On Nov. 22, 2024, the trial court issued a rule to show cause, ordering Motaparthy to appear for a hearing on Dec. 13, 2024.
The private process server posted the show cause order on the front door of Motaparthy’s residence. Despite knowing that he was out of the country, Ravi did not attempt to serve him in India, nor did she mail him a copy of the rule to show cause.
On Dec. 2, Ravi sent an email to Motaparthy notifying him of the hearing and providing him with a copy of the show cause order. He responded on Dec. 12 that he was unable to travel back to the United
States for the hearing because he was receiving medical treatments in India.
When Motaparthy did not appear for the show cause hearing, Ravi told the court that he “ha[d] been served” and was aware of the proceeding but was in India and would not attend.
The trial court entered an order finding Motaparthy in civil contempt and appointed a special commissioner to sell certain real property, distribute the proceeds according to the terms of the final decree and satisfy other debts.
One week later, Motaparthy filed a motion asking the court to vacate its contempt order, but the trial court denied the motion.
‘Diligent efforts’ not demonstrated
Pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-274.1, a rule to show cause entered by a court shall be served on the person alleged to have violated the court order, along with the accompanying motion or petition and any affidavit filed with such motion or petition.
The statute does not compel the conclusion that personal service is the only permissible method of service for a rule to show cause, the court recognized, with other methods such as substituted service on a family member or by posting.
Ravi relied on Koons v. Crane, a 2021 appellate court decision that found substituted service was valid in part because the defendant had evaded personal service of the show cause order by fleeing to Saudi Arabia. The record also contained evidence that the plaintiff had unsuccessfully attempted to serve the defendant in Saudi Arabia in addition to sending him an email to what appeared to be a valid address.
“In other words, the plaintiff demonstrated through reasonably diligent efforts that she could not serve the defendant in person,” the court wrote. “Such is not the case here.”
Unlike in Koons, nothing in the record suggested that Motaparthy’s travel was to evade personal service and nor did the record show that Ravi made any attempt to serve him in person, let alone that her efforts were reasonably diligent, the court said.
“She did not demonstrate that she made reasonably diligent efforts to personally serve Motaparthy through the statutory procedure or otherwise, or that any such efforts would have been futile,” the court wrote. “Ravi was not permitted to use posted service as the first and only method of attempted service merely because Motaparthy was in India. She was still required to follow the statutory hierarchy of methods of service.”
Doctrine not applicable
Alternatively, Ravi argued that the judgment should be affirmed under the right result for the wrong reason doctrine, because any defect in service was cured under Va. Code § 8.01-288.
But the doctrine was not available where the development of additional facts is necessary, the court explained.
“As an initial matter, Code § 8.01-288 explicitly does not apply when process must be served for an action ‘wherein service of process is specifically prescribed by statute,’” the court wrote. “Here the show cause statute provides that ‘[a] rule to show cause entered by [a] court shall be served on the person alleged to have violated the court order, along with the accompanying motion or petition and any affidavit filed with such motion or petition.’ Because service of process is explicitly prescribed by § 8.01-274.1, § 8.01-288 does not apply.”
Even if the statute did apply, additional fact-finding would be necessary to determine whether Motaparthy actually received notice of the hearing, the court added. The record included a copy of the email Ravi’s counsel sent Motaparthy 11 days before the show cause hearing, but Motaparthy did not respond to the email — and thereby demonstrate that he had received it — until the day before the show cause hearing, and the trial court did not make any factual determination that he actually received the notice.
The court reversed judgment.
