Gomm v. Winterfeldt
| Docket Number | 20220043 |
| Decision Date | 29 September 2022 |
| Citation | 980 N.W.2d 204 |
| Parties | Bruce Joseph GOMM, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Amy Lorraine WINTERFELDT, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Amy M. Clark, Wahpeton, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Jonathan L. Green, Wahpeton, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
[¶1] Amy Winterfeldt appeals from the denial of her request for primary residential responsibility and the granting of Bruce Gomm's motion for modification of parenting time. Winterfeldt also filed a motion to dismiss this appeal and vacate the underlying proceedings, arguing the district court and this Court lack subject matter jurisdiction because Gomm failed to properly register the existing foreign orders in North Dakota. We deny the motion to dismiss and affirm the district court.
[¶2] Winterfeldt and Gomm were divorced in Minnesota in 2014. Gomm was awarded custody of the parties’ child, A.J.G. Both parties subsequently moved to Texas and Texas courts assumed jurisdiction over parenting responsibilities related to A.J.G.
[¶3] In 2020, Gomm moved to North Dakota and requested the Texas court relinquish jurisdiction while several motions were pending in Texas. The Texas court indicated it would relinquish jurisdiction if Gomm initiated an action in North Dakota. Gomm then requested North Dakota register the prior Minnesota and Texas actions and accept jurisdiction over the dispute. Winterfeldt filed procedural objections to the registration.
[¶4] The North Dakota district court accepted jurisdiction and Winterfeldt filed additional objections to the registration. Before the district court addressed the additional objections, Winterfeldt filed a request for a writ of supervision with this Court. Winterfeldt's request for a writ of supervision was denied. Following the denial of Winterfeldt's request for a writ of supervision, the district court heard arguments on Gomm's motion to modify parenting time and Winterfeldt's response requesting primary residential responsibility of the child.
[¶5] Gomm's motion for modification of Winterfeldt's parenting time was granted. Winterfeldt's request for primary residential responsibility was denied without a hearing after the district court found Winterfeldt had not established a prima facie case. In denying Winterfeldt's request for primary residential responsibility, the court declined to consider her second set of affidavits and exhibits filed after Gomm had responded to her motion.
[¶6] Winterfeldt appealed and argues the district court erred in determining she had not established a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility, erred in denying her an evidentiary hearing, and erred in not holding a hearing on motions pending in Texas. While this appeal was pending, Winterfeldt filed a motion with this Court to dismiss the appeal, arguing Gomm's failure to properly register the out-of-state actions in North Dakota deprived North Dakota courts of subject matter jurisdiction.
[¶7] Winterfeldt argues the district court and this Court lack jurisdiction because Gomm failed to properly register the prior Texas and Minnesota custody determinations in North Dakota. Whether a district court had subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to the de novo standard of review. Kelly v. Kelly , 2011 ND 167, ¶ 12, 806 N.W.2d 133. We have previously discussed jurisdiction for modification of an existing foreign custody determination in Harshberger v. Harshberger , 2006 ND 245, ¶ 17, 724 N.W.2d 148 (quoting Benson v. Benson , 2003 ND 131, ¶ 8, 667 N.W.2d. 582 ) as follows:
First, a court must determine whether it has jurisdiction, and, if it finds that it does, it then must determine whether there is a custody proceeding pending or a decree made by another state which has jurisdiction. If there is a pending custody proceeding in another state, a court must follow the process in N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-17 and PKPA [Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act 28 U.S.C.] § 1738A(g). A court may not modify a decree issued by another state, except as provided in N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-14 and PKPA [ 28 U.S.C.] §§ 1738A(f) and (h). Finally, assuming there is neither a proceeding pending in another state nor a decree by which another state retains jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-18 on the basis of an inconvenient forum, and the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-19 if a person seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct.
[¶8] Registration of foreign custody determinations and subsequent enforcement of a foreign custody determination are governed by N.D.C.C. §§ 14-14.1-25 through 14-14.1-37. Here, the district court exercised its jurisdiction to modify an existing foreign custody determination. Modification "means a child custody determination that changes, replaces, supersedes, or is otherwise made after a previous determination concerning the same child, whether or not it is made by the court that made the previous determination." N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-01(10). Jurisdiction to modify an existing custody determination, whether made by a court of this state or a foreign tribunal, is governed by N.D.C.C. §§ 14-14.1-12 through 14-14.1-20. There is no statutory requirement that a foreign custody determination be registered under N.D.C.C. §§ 14-14.1-25 through 14-14.1-37 to establish jurisdiction for the modification of an existing custody determination.
[¶9] Winterfeldt incorrectly merges the statutory process for registration and enforcement of a foreign custody determination with the exercise of jurisdiction to modify a custody determination. Winterfeldt has not advanced any argument challenging jurisdiction other than the failure to properly register the foreign custody determination. In particular, she has not made any challenge to the district court's jurisdiction to modify the existing custody determination as governed by N.D.C.C. §§ 14-14.1-12 through 14-14.1-20 other than the registration issue.
[¶10] Our conclusion that registration of a foreign custody determination is separate from a determination of jurisdiction for the modification of an existing custody determination is consistent with the conclusion of other courts. See, e.g. , Hays v. Kaelin , 2014-Ohio-3357, 2014 WL 3809047 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). Interpreting the same provisions of the uniform act adopted in North Dakota, the Court of Appeals of Ohio noted the following:
Pursuant to R.C. 3127.36(B), a registered foreign custody order is recognized and enforced by the courts of this state, but may not be modified, except in accordance with the provisions of R.C. 3127.15 to R.C. 3127.24. Therefore, the procedure for modifying foreign custody orders is separate and distinct from the registration process set forth in R.C. 3127.35. See McGhan v. Vettel , 122 Ohio St.3d 227, 2009-Ohio-2884, 909 N.E.2d 1279, ¶ 19 (); Bonds v. Bonds , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2010-A-0063, 2011-Ohio-5867, ¶ 50 ().
Hays, 2014-Ohio-3357, ¶ 15. We reject Winterfeldt's challenge to the district court's jurisdiction and this Court's jurisdiction based exclusively on registration deficiencies because registration is not a prerequisite for determining whether a court in this state has jurisdiction.
[¶11] Exercising our de novo review we conclude the district court had jurisdiction to modify an existing foreign custody determination pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-14 because North Dakota was the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding; Texas no longer had jurisdiction as the parties and child had all moved from Texas and, even if Texas was the home state, Texas had declined to exercise jurisdiction after determining North Dakota is the more appropriate and convenient forum. Jurisdiction to modify an existing determination is made independent from registration and enforcement of a foreign determination. The motion to dismiss asserting North Dakota courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction is denied.
[¶12] Winterfeldt argues the district court violated the law of the case doctrine and its obligations to the Texas court when it failed to hold a hearing on motions pending in Texas. She argues the law of the case is the foreign custody order Gomm registered in North Dakota. This Court summarized the law of the case doctrine as follows:
[T]he law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Under the law of the case doctrine, a party may not, in the same case with the same facts, relitigate issues that were decided in a prior appeal or issues which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal. The law of the case doctrine is based upon the theory of res judicata, and is grounded on judicial economy to prevent piecemeal and unnecessary appeals.
Schmitz v. N.D. State Bd. of Chiro. Exam'rs , 2022 ND 52, ¶ 6, 971 N.W.2d 892 (quoting Ring v. N.D. Dep't of Human Servs. , 2021 ND 151, ¶ 5, 963 N.W.2d 255 ). Further, "A successor judge should not revisit rulings previously made in the same proceedings unless special circumstances exist." Rose Henderson Peterson Mineral Trust dated March 26, 1987 , 2022 ND 92, ¶ 12, 974 N.W.2d 372 (cleaned up).
[¶13] The law of the case doctrine as invoked by Winterfeldt is inapplicable to these proceedings. It is unclear how Winterfeldt connects the law of the case doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial