Bankler v. Bankler, 971149-CA

• Decision Date: 30 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 971149-CA,971149-CA
• Citation: 963 P.2d 797
• Parties: 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 37 Dorena BANKLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jack BANKLER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 797

963 P.2d 797

348 Utah Adv. Rep. 37

Dorena BANKLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jack BANKLER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 971149-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

July 30, 1998.

R. Clayton Huntsman, Huntsman & Christensen, St. George, for Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald L. Read, St. George, for Plaintiff and Appellee.

Before BENCH, GREENWOOD and JACKSON, JJ.

OPINION

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Appellant Jack Bankler appeals the trial court's denial of his petition to modify a domesticated California divorce decree, asserting the court erred in determining it lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Dorena Bankler obtained a divorce from Mr. Bankler in December 1991 in a decree issued by the San Bernardino County Superior Court in California. The Judgment of Dissolution ordered Mr. Bankler to pay Ms. Bankler spousal support of $1200 per month from October 1, 1991, through October 1995, at which time the award would be reduced to zero. The court specifically "maintain[ed] jurisdiction over spousal support for an additional 4 years [after October 1995] at which time it shall forever terminate." The court ordered that the amount of support would not be modifiable "except upon the death of [Ms. Bankler in] the first 4 year period, thereafter death, remarriage, cohabitation, or further order of the court shall be grounds for earlier termination during the second 4 year period."

In 1995, Ms. Bankler sought continuation of the spousal support for an additional four years. Following a hearing that Mr. Bankler failed to attend, the California court entered an Order After Hearing in April 1996, continuing the spousal support for an additional four year period.

In October 1996, after Mr. Bankler had moved to Utah, Ms. Bankler domesticated the California court's orders in Utah's Fifth District Court and filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause alleging Mr. Bankler had failed to pay spousal support since September 1995. Mr. Bankler responded by filing a petition to modify the California decree in the Fifth District Court, claiming substantial material changes in circumstances prevented his continued payment of spousal support. The Fifth District Court dismissed the petition to modify, holding it had "no jurisdiction to modify the decree of divorce arising in a sister state, and the matter is best handled in the sister state." Mr. Bankler appeals.

ISSUE & STANDARD OF REVIEW

The sole issue before us is whether the Fifth District Court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the California divorce decree after it was domesticated in Utah. " '[T]he propriety of [a] jurisdictional determination ... [is] a question of law upon which we do not defer to the district court.' " Bonneville Billing v. Whatley, 949 P.2d 768, 771 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (quoting State Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Vijil, 784 P.2d 1130, 1132 (Utah 1989)).

ANALYSIS

Mr. Bankler asserts that by domesticating the California decree and all subsequent orders entered by the California court, Ms. Bankler subjected herself, and the case in its entirety, to the Utah court's jurisdiction. He claims that a petition to modify alimony is essentially a request to "reopen" the decree as that term is used in the Utah Foreign Judgment Act, that such a petition is a valid defense to an action for enforcement, and that the Utah court accordingly has subject matter jurisdiction over the modification petition.

Ms. Bankler argues that notwithstanding language of the Utah Foreign Judgment Act, the Utah court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to modify a California divorce decree. She further argues that Utah statutes confer exclusive continuing jurisdiction upon the original court that issued the divorce decree, and that her acts of domesticating the decree and of subsequently initiating enforcement proceedings do not abrogate the California court's exclusive jurisdiction.

"The Utah Foreign Judgment Act provides a mechanism for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Utah." Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142, 1143 (Utah 1991). The Utah Foreign Judgment Act provides:

(1) As used in this chapter, "foreign judgment" means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court whose acts are entitled to full faith and credit in this state.

(2) A copy of a foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with an appropriate act of Congress or an appropriate act of Utah may be filed with the clerk of any district court in Utah. The clerk of the district court shall treat the foreign judgment in all respects as a judgment of a district court of Utah.

(3) A foreign judgment filed under this chapter has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, enforcement, satisfaction, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, setting aside, or staying as a judgment of a district court of this state.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-22a-2 (1996) (emphasis added). Once a foreign judgment is filed, it is "subject to the same procedures to attack or enforce it as a Utah judgment." Pan Energy, 813 P.2d at 1144. As noted earlier, Mr. Bankler essentially argues that his petition to modify is allowed under section 78-22a-2(3), as a "reopening" of the foreign judgment.

Rules 59 and 60 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure describe the methods by which a party may attack or reopen a domestic judgment. Pursuant to those rules, a party may timely move for a new trial or an amendment of the judgment, ¹ or move for relief from a judgment due to mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, and the like. ²

Our supreme court discussed the limited ability to address issues decided in a foreign judgment in Data Management Systems, Inc. v. EDP Corp., 709 P.2d 377 (Utah 1985) (per curiam). In that case, Data Management obtained a default judgment in Wisconsin in a breach of contract action against EDP. Pursuant to the Utah Foreign Judgment Act, Data Management domesticated the Wisconsin judgment in Salt Lake County in order to enforce the judgment. EDP asked both the Wisconsin and Utah courts to set aside the judgment. The Utah court denied the motion and EDP appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the Wisconsin court reasserted its jurisdiction over EDP. See id. at 378-79. Data Management then contended that the action of the Wisconsin court mooted the issues on appeal before the Utah Supreme Court. See id. at 379. Because the Utah Supreme Court gave full faith and credit to the "judgment and determinations of the Wisconsin courts," id., the court held that

[n]either Rule 60(b) nor our Utah Foreign Judgment Act allows our Utah courts to reopen, reexamine, or alter a foreign judgment duly filed in this state, absent a showing of fraud or the lack of jurisdiction or due process in the rendering state. Only these defenses may be raised to destroy the full faith and credit owed to the foreign judgment sought to be enforced under the Foreign Judgments [sic] Act.

Id. at 381 (citing Morris v. Jones, 329 U.S. 545, 67 S.Ct. 451, 91 L.Ed. 488 (1947)) (emphasis added). Therefore, the remedies available under Rule 59 and 60 are limited by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution when a foreign judgment is at issue. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1.

In this case, Mr. Bankler does not rely upon any of the defenses enumerated in Data Management to attack the validity of the California decree; he has not asserted fraud or lack of jurisdiction or due process by the California court, as required by Data Management. Instead, Mr. Bankler seems to argue that his petition to modify is a "defense" to Ms. Bankler's enforcement efforts. ³ We do not agree. A petition to modify a divorce decree is not an attack on a judgment pursuant to Rules 59 or 60 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, it is a request for the court to address prospective alimony based on a demonstrated change of circumstances. ⁴

Actions to modify a divorce decree should "properly be brought in the forum which issued the decree." Angell v. Sixth Dist. Court, 656 P.2d 405, 406-07 (Utah 1982) (per curiam). In Rimensburger v. Rimensburger, 841 P.2d 709 (Utah Ct.App.1992), a wife petitioned the Third District Court in Salt Lake County for modification of a Fifth District Washington County divorce decree. On appeal, this court held that "the court issuing the original decree retains exclusive jurisdiction to modify its decrees. Parties wishing to modify a decree must do so in the original forum." Id. at 710 (emphasis added).

Although...