Trial Court entered a DVO against Father. Nothing in the record of the domestic violence hearing showed that a summons was served on Father. Mother argued the summons was served on Father at his last known address and that Father told Mother he was aware of the date of the hearing. The Court of Appels held that Father was not properly served with a summons to appear for a hearing because, under KRS 403.730(1)(b), summons in response to a DVO petition “shall be made upon the adverse party personally” and “knowledge of the pendency of an action is not sufficient to give a court jurisdiction over a person.” The DVO entered by the trial court was vacated and the case remanded for another hearing after proper service was made.
Digested by Emily T. Cecconi
