IN RE MARRIAGE OF HADDAD, No. 03CA0072.
| Docket Nº | No. 03CA0072. |
| Citation | 93 P.3d 617 |
| Case Date | May 06, 2004 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
93 P.3d 617
In re the MARRIAGE OF Leigh A. HADDAD, Appellee, andJoseph M. Haddad, Appellant, and
Concerning El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit, Intervenor-Appellee
No. 03CA0072.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V.
May 6, 2004.
Sidney L. Patin, P.C., Sidney L. Patin, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant.
Belveal & Eigel, L.L.C., Christina K. Eigel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Intervenor-Appellee.
Opinion by Judge RUSSEL.
In this proceeding under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, § 14-5-101, et seq., C.R.S.2003 (UIFSA), Joseph M. Haddad (father) appeals from the district court's order finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Leigh A. Haddad (mother) to enter a judgment against her for overpaid child support and refusing to offset father's overpayment against his current child support obligation. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.
Prior to the dissolution of marriage, father was a resident of Colorado, and mother and the parties' four children were residents of Connecticut. In 1996, the State of Connecticut, on behalf of mother, forwarded a uniform support petition to the Teller County Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU), requesting entry of an order of child support. Based on that petition, the Teller County District Court ordered father to pay $315.17 per month in child support.
The El Paso County District Court entered a decree of dissolution of marriage in 1998, incorporating the child support order entered in the UIFSA proceeding. In 2000, venue of the UIFSA proceeding was transferred from Teller County to El Paso County. All subsequent child support orders were entered in the El Paso County UIFSA proceeding.
In 2002, father requested modification of the child support order. He noted that one of the children had lived with him since 1999, and he asked the magistrate to (1) modify the amount of child support and (2) apply the new amount retroactively to 1999. The magistrate modified the amount but declined to make the modification retroactive. The district court subsequently reversed part of the magistrate's ruling and made the child support modification retroactive to July 1999.
Because the retroactive application of the modified child support resulted in an overpayment, father requested that the district court enter a judgment against mother for the overpaid child support and relieve him of his present child support payments until he received reimbursement for the overpayment. The district court found there was an overpayment of $12,709.81. But the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against mother for the overpayment.
I. Jurisdiction
Father first contends that the district court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against mother for the overpaid child support. We agree.
Whether the court has jurisdiction in a UIFSA action to enter an order remedying an overpayment of child support is a question of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.
A.
Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the authority of the court to decide a particular matter. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and the right to do so cannot be waived. In re Marriage of Tonnessen, 937 P.2d 863 (Colo.App.1996).
In addressing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in this case, it is important to note what is not at stake. There is no doubt that the court here had jurisdiction over the child support orders generally, for Colorado is both the "issuing state" and "responding state" under § 14-5-102, C.R.S.2003. Thus, unlike in In re Marriage of Zinke, 967 P.2d 210, 211 (Colo.App.1998), the court had continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child support orders. Similarly, there is no doubt that the court's determination here was limited to issues of child support. Unlike in People in Interest of R.L.H., 942 P.2d 1386, 1389 (Colo.App.1997), the court was not asked to rule on any extraneous matter, such as parenting time.
We begin with an examination of § 14-5-305(b), C.R.S.2003, which sets forth the powers of the responding tribunal in a UIFSA proceeding....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pappas v. O'brien, s. 10–398
...operate to prevent personal jurisdiction over a claim of outstanding child support between the same parties. See In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617, 620 (Colo.App.2004) (“[A] petition for affirmative relief under UIFSA limits the jurisdiction of the tribunal to the boundaries of the supp......
-
In re Marriage of Anthony-Guillar, 07CA2224.
...of a parent's misconduct, a court must determine whether such reduction will damage the child's interests. See In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617, 620-21 (Colo.App. 2004) (court may only offset overpayment against current child support obligation if, in doing so, "the interests of the ch......
-
In re Marriage of Hillstrom, 04CA0127.
...We disagree. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the authority of the court to decide a particular matter. In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617 (Colo.App.2004); In re Marriage of Ness, 759 P.2d 844 A. Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act On October 20, 1994, the U.S. Congres......
-
In re L.K.Y., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1674
...the statutory child support guidelines. See In re Marriage of Hein, 253 P.3d 636, 637 (Colo.App.2010) ; see also In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617, 620 (Colo.App.2004) (special considerations of an equitable nature arise in domestic relations cases and district courts are necessarily ve......
-
Pappas v. O'brien, s. 10–398
...operate to prevent personal jurisdiction over a claim of outstanding child support between the same parties. See In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617, 620 (Colo.App.2004) (“[A] petition for affirmative relief under UIFSA limits the jurisdiction of the tribunal to the boundaries of the supp......
-
In re Marriage of Anthony-Guillar, 07CA2224.
...of a parent's misconduct, a court must determine whether such reduction will damage the child's interests. See In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617, 620-21 (Colo.App. 2004) (court may only offset overpayment against current child support obligation if, in doing so, "the interests of the ch......
-
In re Marriage of Hillstrom, 04CA0127.
...We disagree. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the authority of the court to decide a particular matter. In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617 (Colo.App.2004); In re Marriage of Ness, 759 P.2d 844 A. Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act On October 20, 1994, the U.S. Congres......
-
In re L.K.Y., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1674
...the statutory child support guidelines. See In re Marriage of Hein, 253 P.3d 636, 637 (Colo.App.2010) ; see also In re Marriage of Haddad, 93 P.3d 617, 620 (Colo.App.2004) (special considerations of an equitable nature arise in domestic relations cases and district courts are necessarily ve......