Edwards v. Reanna S. Zyla Sean P. Edwards, 2015-IA-00805-SCT

• Decision Date: 17 November 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 2015-IA-00805-SCT,C/W NO. 2015-CA-00891-SCT,2015-IA-00805-SCT
• Parties: SEAN P. EDWARDS AND KATHRYN LOYACONO v. REANNA S. ZYLA SEAN P. EDWARDS v. REANNA S. ZYLA
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

SEAN P. EDWARDS AND KATHRYN LOYACONO
v.
REANNA S. ZYLA

SEAN P. EDWARDS
v.
REANNA S. ZYLA

NO. 2015-IA-00805-SCT
C/W NO. 2015-CA-00891-SCT

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

November 17, 2016

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/07/2015

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN S. PRICE, JR.

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY COUNTY COURT

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: JEREMY PAUL McNINCH ANN REGAN BILBO PAUL KELLY LOYACONO BENJAMIN HOUSTON WILSON

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MARY BARNETTE COTTON TRAVIS T. VANCE, JR.

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER

DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 11/17/2016

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/16/2015

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. J. LARRY BUFFINGTON

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

Page 2

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JEREMY PAUL McNINCH ANN REGAN BILBO PAUL KELLY LOYACONO BENJAMIN HOUSTON WILSON

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MARY BARNETTE COTTON TRAVIS T. VANCE, JR.

NATURE OF THE CASE: OTHER

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/17/2016

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE DICKINSON, P.J., COLEMAN AND BEAM, JJ.

COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. The case sub judice involves the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) - particularly whether the Warren County Chancery Court erred in deciding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a custody dispute between Sean Edwards and Reanna Zyla. The matter before us consolidates a direct appeal from the chancery court and an interlocutory appeal from the Warren County County Court, both related to the custody of two minor children. We affirm the chancery court's judgment, and we reverse the county court's registration of the Arizona custody modification and remand the case for the county court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Edwards and Zyla never married, but they have two children together- an eleven-year-old daughter and an eight-year-old son. They lived in Arizona, and in 2010, an Arizona court entered an order establishing the parties' custodial rights and visitation - joint legal and physical custody. Edwards and Zyla lived together on and off while in Arizona until June

Page 3

2013, when they moved to Mississippi.¹ Prior to the move, Zyla handwrote a notarized statement granting Edwards "permission to . . . take our children . . . to move to Mississippi on June 1, 2013[,] in the event my health conditions prevent me from going with them." Shortly after arriving in Mississippi, Edwards filed an action in Warren County Youth Court alleging Zyla had neglected the children and asking for emergency custody. Zyla filed a motion to dismiss based on the youth court's lack of jurisdiction. By August 2013, Zyla had moved back to Arizona, while Edwards and the children remained in Mississippi.

¶3. On August 26, 2013, Edwards filed a request in the chancery court for the registration and modification of the Arizona custody determination. The following day, on August 27, 2013, the youth court entered an order that the testimony overwhelmingly showed that the parties had moved and had abandoned their residence and domicile in Arizona when they moved to Mississippi and had established a permanent residence in Vicksburg. Edwards's mother, Kathryn Loyacono, was given temporary custody of the children. The next month, Zyla filed a petition in the Arizona court to modify the Arizona custody agreement.

¶4. Next, the youth court removed Kathryn's temporary custody and, on November 13, 2013, gave Edwards custody "until further order of this court or another court of competent jurisdiction." Then, on February 6, 2014, the Arizona court entered a "Minute Entry: Jurisdictional Issue"; it conferred with the youth court about jurisdiction and apparently, the Arizona court and the youth court determined that the Arizona court should have jurisdiction.

Page 4

On the same day, the youth court entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction and closing the case.

¶5. Likely prompted by the youth court's and Arizona court's jurisdiction decision...