Deltoro v. McMullen
| Decision Date | 21 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 2423,2423 |
| Citation | 471 S.E.2d 742,322 S.C. 328 |
| Parties | Brenda DELTORO, Respondent, v. Joe L. McMULLEN, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Gregory S. Forman, Charleston, for appellant.
L.J. Rosintoski, North Charleston, for respondent.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In this court's Opinion No. 2423 filed November 27, 1995, we vacated the trial court's child support order on the basis of a lack of subject jurisdiction. We based our decision on an application of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) which both parties argued were applicable to the case. In her petition for rehearing the wife asserts for the first time that subject matter jurisdiction before the family court should have been premised on the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) because jurisdiction attached under that Act at the time the action was filed, even though UIFSA was in effect at the time the trial court issued its order. We agree, withdraw our previous decision, grant wife's petition for rehearing and substitute the attached opinion for our prior opinion.
/s/ Jasper M. Cureton, J.
/s/ C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., J.
/s/ Kay G. Hearn, J.
This domestic relations action involves the family court's exercise of jurisdiction to modify a Virginia child support order. We hold the family court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and affirm the trial court's decision.
The parties to this action, Brenda Deltoro (the mother) and Joe L. McMullen (the father) were married in Charleston, South Carolina on January 18, 1978. They have two minor children, both of whom were born in South Carolina.
The father is a member of the United States Navy. From the time the parties married until February of 1982, the father was stationed in Charleston, South Carolina and the parties resided there with their children. The parties and their children moved to Virginia in February 1982 when the father was transferred to a naval base in Norfolk. The parties separated in September of 1983, with the mother moving out of the marital home and taking the children with her. The mother subsequently returned to South Carolina with the children. The father continues to reside in Virginia.
In May of 1985, the mother brought an action against the husband for child support in the Charleston County family court. Pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-960 through -1170 (1976), the action was transmitted to Virginia. The Virginia court entered an order requiring the father to pay $350.00 per month child support. The mother thereafter registered the order with the Charleston County family court.
In September of 1985, the mother instituted an action for divorce against the father in Charleston County. The father did not file a notice of appearance, or otherwise respond to the mother's petition for divorce and the matter was adjudicated in his absence. In February of 1986, the family court issued an order granting the mother's plea for divorce on the ground of one year continuous separation.
The mother instituted the instant action in the Charleston County family court in October of 1993, seeking modification of the Virginia child support order. In response, the father filed a pro se special defense alleging the family court lacked jurisdiction over his person and seeking dismissal of the action.
The family court held it had authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the father because the parties' children were conceived in South Carolina. Thereafter, the court issued an order increasing the father's monthly child support obligation from $350.00 to $840.00 and requiring the father to pay $1,500.00 in attorney fees. The father's subsequent petitions for a writ of supersedeas pending appeal were denied by the family court and the Supreme Court.
On appeal, the father argues for the first time that, pursuant the the provision of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-960, through -1166 (Supp.1995), the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the mother's petition for modification of the Virginia child support order. 1 While neither party contested the applicability of UIFSA to the facts of this case in their briefs or during oral arguments, the mother, in her petition for rehearing, asserts provisions of URESA, not UIFSA afforded the family court subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Virginia support order. We agree.
UIFSA, which replaced URESA, became effective in South Carolina on July 1, 1994. The order modifying the father's child support obligation was issued by the Charleston family court on July 15, 1994.
UIFSA addresses the creation, enforcement, and modification of child support orders affecting residents of different states. Undoubtedly, the authority vested in South Carolina courts to modify an order of support issued from a foreign jurisdiction is not without limitation and, in fact, is specifically limited under UIFSA. Section 20-7-1152(A) of UIFSA sets forth specific circumstances under which a South Carolina family court may modify the child support order of another state.
The express language of § 20-7-1152(A) limits the jurisdictional authority of South Carolina courts to hear petitions for modification of foreign support orders to cases where (1) all of the requirements set forth in subsection (A)(1) are satisfied, or (2) all of the requirements set forth in subsection (A)(2) are satisfied. Neither of the two subsections are satisfied under the facts of the instant case. Subsection (A)(1) is inapplicable because the father still resides in the issuing state and because the plaintiff herein, the mother, is not a nonresident. Subsection (A)(2) is inapplicable as well because the parties have not filed the requisite agreement in the Virginia court conferring jurisdiction to the South Carolina family court.
Without question, the Charleston County family court is not afforded subject matter jurisdiction to hear the mother's claim pursuant to § 20-7-1152(A) of UIFSA. The mother, however, now argues the provisions of § 20-7-1155 of URESA afford the family court jurisdiction.
S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-1155 provides that upon registration, a "foreign support order must be treated in the same manner as a support order issued by a court of this state." The courts appear to have treated this language literally. See Balestrine v. Jordan, 275 S.C. 442, 272 S.E.2d 438 (1980) (); Donn-Griffin v. Donn, 615 A.2d 253 (Me.1992) (); Hudgins v. Hudgins, 80 Ohio App.3d 707, 610 N.E.2d 582 (1992) (); Bjugan v. Bjugan, 710 P.2d 213 (Wyo.1985) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badeaux v. Davis
...Under URESA, South Carolina had the authority to modify an existing foreign support order once registered. See Deltoro v. McMullen, 322 S.C. 328, 471 S.E.2d 742 (1996). By allowing multiple jurisdictions to all have authority to modify support orders, URESA resulted in multiple orders; some......
-
Cavallari v. Martin
...very limited exceptions of § 213. Therefore, the enactment of UIFSA cannot affect the outcome of this case. See Deltoro v. McMullen, 322 S.C. 328, 471 S.E.2d 742, 745 (1996) (reaching same result based on savings clause specifically appended to legislation enacting UIFSA has a federal count......
-
Welsher v. Rager
...(Tex.Ct.App.1995)(applying UIFSA to a 1982 foreign support order where UIFSA became effective in 1993). But see Deltoro v. McMullen, 322 S.C. 328, 471 S.E.2d 742 (Ct.App.1996)(applying UIFSA prospectively due to a savings clause in the In her final assignment of error, plaintiff contends th......
-
Chem-Nuclear Systems v. S.C. Bd. of Health
...pending suit. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res. v. McDonald, 367 S.C. 531, 535, 626 S.E.2d 816, 818 (Ct.App.2006); Deltoro v. McMullen, 322 S.C. 328, 333, 471 S.E.2d 742, 745 (Ct.App.1996), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 522 S.E.2d 835 (Ct.App.1......