Ball v. Ball
| Decision Date | 23 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 109532,ED 109532 |
| Citation | 638 S.W.3d 543 |
| Parties | Kimberly L. BALL, Appellant, v. Michael R. BALL, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT: Edwin V. Butler, Butler Law Group, LLC, 3460 Hampton Avenue, Suite 205, St. Louis, Missouri 63139.
FOR RESPONDENT: Melissa A. Featherston Lecour, Featherston Law Firm, 1270 Jungerman Road, Suite A, St. Peters, MO 63376.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Joshua G. Knight, 423 Jackson Street, St. Charles, MO 63301.
Kimberly Guinn ("Mother") appeals the trial court's judgment modifying an Illinois court's child custody judgment and giving Michael Ball ("Father") sole physical custody of their daughter, MB. Mother raises eight Points on appeal. In Point I, Mother challenges the trial court's "jurisdiction" to modify an Illinois court's dissolution judgment. In Point II, Mother argues the trial court improperly entered a temporary custody order without a hearing and delegated its judicial authority to enter a custody order to a guardian ad litem ("GAL"). In Points III-IV, Mother argues the trial court erred by awarding the parties joint legal custody, giving Father final decision-making authority, and awarding Father sole physical custody of MB. In Point V, Mother argues the trial court uncritically "rubber stamped" Father's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In Point VI, Mother argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the Illinois judgment's award of a tax credit to her. In Point VII, Mother argues the trial court erred by dismissing her motion for new trial as untimely. In Point VIII, Mother argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the child support order because it was not registered for modification.
We affirm.
The parties’ relationship began in 2008. They had one child together in March of 2010, MB. The parties married in July of 2010 and divorced in Illinois on June 28, 2017. They lived in both Missouri and Illinois at different points during the marriage and were twice separated pending divorce in 2012-2013 and 2015-2017.
The 2017 Illinois dissolution judgment provided Mother would receive sole physical and legal custody of MB and Father would receive visitation on the Illinois equivalent of a Siegenthaler schedule.1 In July 2019, Father attempted to register the dissolution judgment in Missouri and sought to modify it under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), RSMo § 452.810.12 and Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.14.3
Section 452.810.1 permits registration of another state's child custody determination in Missouri courts. The registration may include a simultaneous request for enforcement. As relevant here, to register a foreign judgment, section 452.810.1(2) provides the registering party must send (1) two copies, including one certified copy, of the determination sought to be registered and (2) a statement under penalty of perjury that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person seeking registration the order has not been modified.
Rule 74.14 controls registration of foreign judgments in Missouri courts generally and contains filing rules pertaining to properly authenticating the foreign judgment seeking registration. Rule 74.14(b) provides:
A copy of any foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with the act of Congress or the statutes of this state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any circuit court of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the circuit court of this state. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a circuit court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to modify on October 15-16, 2020. Whether Father properly registered the judgment in Missouri was not an issue raised. On December 16, 2020, the trial court raised the issue of its jurisdiction over the Illinois judgment sua sponte. The trial court's jurisdiction concerns did not include the authentication of the Illinois judgment; they were limited to the court's ability to modify a foreign judgment without first consulting the issuing state's court.4 On January 7, 2021, the trial court held a jurisdictional conference with the Illinois court under Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.730.5 Both parties participated in the conference and submitted written arguments to the Illinois court about which court should have jurisdiction over the modification motion.
On January 29, 2021, the Illinois court entered a written judgment finding it had no continuing interest in retaining jurisdiction over the parties. Specifically, the Illinois court found:
Based on the evidence, neither the child, the child's parents, nor any person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this State and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships. The Court, therefore, no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the issue of child custody [....] Based upon the evidence, even if the Court were to find that it has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, Illinois is an inconvenient forum for the parties to litigate the issue of modification of this Court's judgment and the Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction.
The Illinois court further emphasized Illinois was an inappropriate forum because (1) MB lived in Missouri "the majority of the time since entry of the Illinois judgment;" (2) the distance between the parties did not create an undue burden; (3) the parties "essentially agreed to the jurisdiction of the Missouri court by litigating the entire case [in Missouri];" and (4) the Missouri court was in a better position to decide the case and consider witness credibility because the Missouri court heard the evidence and the Illinois court did not.
The Missouri court accepted the Illinois court's findings and retained jurisdiction. On February 8, 2021, the Missouri court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law, modifying the Illinois judgment (1) granting joint legal custody to both parents; (2) granting sole physical custody to Father; (3) eliminating Father's child support obligations; and (4) purportedly transferring child tax benefits to Father.
The Illinois and Missouri trial courts are to be commended for their efforts to address their continuing jurisdiction over this factually complicated matter.
This appeal follows. Additional factual and procedural history will be provided as necessary to address Mother's claims.
"Whether to register a foreign judgment and the propriety of the foreign judgment are legal conclusions that we review de novo. " Ramalingam v. Kumaresan , 603 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Whether Missouri has jurisdiction to determine custody is also a legal question this Court reviews de novo. Blanchette v. Blanchette , 476 S.W.3d 273, 277 (Mo. banc 2015).
We will affirm the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We will not review the trial court's decisions regarding the weight of the evidence, resolving conflicting evidence, and witness credibility. Sulkin v. Sulkin , 619 S.W.3d 155, 159 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). If the trial court has made no specific findings on a factual issue, such findings are interpreted as having been found in accordance with the judgment. Id.
The trial court's custody determinations are afforded greater deference than other decisions. Thorp v. Thorp , 390 S.W.3d 871, 877 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). We presume the trial court reviewed all the evidence and based its decision on the child's best interests. Id. We view the evidence and any reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and will not reweigh the evidence. Id. The trial court had a superior opportunity to observe the sincerity and character of the witnesses; thus, we defer to the court's credibility determinations. Mehler v. Martin , 440 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).
Mother claims the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the Illinois judgment under the UCCJEA because Father did not include an authenticated, certified copy of the entire judgment in his petition to register the judgment. She points out Father only filed non-authenticated, non-certified copies of the four-page Illinois dissolution judgment and twelve-page parenting plan, omitting the parties’ marital settlement agreement and support order. Mother argues Father's attempt to register the judgment violated Missouri's general foreign judgment registration statute, section 511.760(3);6 section 452.810.1(2) of the UCCJEA; and Rule 74.14. Mother reasons Father had to file an authenticated, certified copy of the Illinois judgment with the trial court and his failure to do so was fatal to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Father "disputes" Mother's claim he failed to properly register the judgment in Missouri but cites no authority supporting his position. Instead, Father notes Mother correctly registered the entire judgment in Missouri in a separate action and argues Mother's registration cured any jurisdictional defect.7
Both parties’ positions are incorrect. Authentication of a foreign state's judgment does not impact a court's jurisdiction; authentication involves the court's authority to act under the statute.
To have jurisdiction over a case, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the issues to be litigated. J.C.W. ex rel....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Interest of J.J.R.H.
...subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction objections can be waived if not timely and properly raised." Ball v. Ball , 638 S.W.3d 543, 554 (Mo. App. 2021). A defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived if it is neither made by motion pursuant to Rule 55.27 nor included in a r......