Doyle, Presiding Judge.This case arises from a suit filed by the Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia (“ERSGA”) against Susan A. Pendergrass based on Pendergrass’s allegedly improper acceptance of payments from ERSGA after the death of her mother, Eleanor Brock. Although Pendergrass failed to appear, in response to ERSGA’s motion for default judgment, the trial court dismissed the case, finding that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Pendergrass. ERSGA appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that venue was improper and that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pendergrass. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. The record reveals that on September 9, 2016, ERSGA filed a complaint on an account, contract, and money had and received against Pendergrass in the State Court of Fulton County. The complaint alleged that Pendergrass wrongfully accepted $6,433.56 in overpaid retirement funds after Brock’s death in April 2013. Pendergrass, who ERSGA alleged was a resident of Auburn, Alabama, was served personally with the complaint on September 15, 2016. Pendergrass failed to answer the complaint or make a special appearance, and on January 4, 2017, ERSGA moved for default judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-55.In response to the motion for default judgment, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the record was bereft of facts that would establish that Pendergrass, a non-resident of the State of Georgia, was subject to suit in Fulton County. The trial court found that the acts pleaded by ERSGA showing that Pendergrass had subjected herself to Georgia law under the Long Arm Statute were not acts completed by Pendergrass on her own behalf and instead were the acts of Brock.1. ERSGA argues that the trial court erred by denying the motion for default judgment. (a) “Jurisdiction of the person is the power of a court to render a personal judgment . . . in . . . a case[] and is obtained by appearance or by serving the proper process in the manner required by law on persons or parties subject to be sued in a particular action.”[1] And “a court has a duty to inquire into its jurisdiction, upon its own motion where there is doubt, and is authorized to dismiss a case against a defendant where personal jurisdiction is lacking.”[2] In its complaint, ERSGA stated that Pendergrass “is currently a resident of Auburn, Alabama,” where ERSGA served her. Thus, from the allegations of the complaint, because Pendergrass is a non-resident, the trial court had to determine whether Georgia’s Long Arm Statute allowed the trial court to assert personal jurisdiction over her to the same extent as a resident of this State.[3] The Supreme Court of Georgia has . . . explained that . . . Georgia permits the assertion of longarm jurisdiction over nonresident defendants based on business conducted through postal, telephonic, and Internet contacts. As a result, when determining the limits of procedural due process, we apply the following threepart test: Jurisdiction exists on the basis of transacting business in this State if (1) the nonresident defendant has purposefully done some act or consummated some transaction in this State, (2) if the cause of action arises from or is connected with such act or transaction, and (3) if the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of this State does not offend traditional notions of fairness and substantial justice.[4]
