Kalia v. Kalia

• Decision Date: 20 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2001-T-0041.,2001-T-0041.
• Citation: 2002 Ohio 7160,783 N.E.2d 623,151 Ohio App.3d 145
• Parties: KALIA, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. KALIA, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 623

783 N.E.2d 623

151 Ohio App.3d 145

2002 Ohio 7160

KALIA, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. KALIA, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.^*

No. 2001-T-0041.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County.

Decided December 20, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., Carl A. Murway and Renee B. Weiss, Cincinnati, for appellee and cross-appellant.

Keating, Keating & Kuzman and Daniel G. Keating, Warren, for appellant crossappellee.

DONALD R. FORD, Judge.

{¶ 1} Appellant/cross-appellee, Jatinder Kalia, appeals from the March 13, 2001 judgment entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellee and cross-appellant, Veena Kalia, filed a cross-appeal.¹

{¶ 2} On March 24, 2000, appellee filed in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, a motion to register a foreign support order from a judgment that was entered on May 5, 1995, by the High Court of Delhi, India. In her motion, she claimed that the order was enforceable in Ohio pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), which is set forth in R.C. 3115.01. The order of the High Court of Delhi, dated May 5, 1995, stated the following: appellant and appellee were married October 12, 1968. Two daughters were born as issue of the marriage: one in 1970, the other in 1971.² In 1972, appellant left India for England to pursue his studies, and in 1973, he moved to Canada. While in Canada, he wrote appellee telling her not to come there, as he was interested in getting their marriage dissolved. Subsequently, he filed for divorce in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Canada on the ground that his marriage with appellee had permanently broken down. Appellee was unable to contest the proceedings, as she had no means to go to Canada.

{¶ 3} On May 19, 1976, the divorce was finalized, and appellant was ordered to pay appellee 1,000 rupees per month for her maintenance and for the children until appellee remarried. Appellee, through a letter, approached the court in Nova Scotia and with legal aid initiated proceedings against appellant for failure to pay maintenance and support. However, appellant left Canada for the United States, but prior to leaving, he deposited a check for 5,000 rupees with the court. Appellant remarried and had three children with his second wife.

{¶ 4} Appellee claimed that the ex parte divorce decree obtained by appellant in Canada was illegal and not binding, and in 1984, she sought a divorce in India under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Appellant filed a request to dismiss and argued that appellee had not contested the Canadian decree because she had not raised any objections, and she accepted the maintenance and support. The trial court in India dismissed the action.

{¶ 5} Yet, in 1986, appellee filed an appeal with the High Court of Delhi, which the court allowed in 1988. On May 5, 1995, the High Court of Delhi disagreed with appellant's arguments and ruled in favor of appellee. The court concluded that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was not a court of competent jurisdiction because appellee's silence could not confer jurisdiction on that court. The High Court of Delhi further stated that the ground the divorce was granted on by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was not a ground under which a divorce could be granted under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Therefore, the High Court of Delhi ruled that the Nova Scotia judgment had no legal validity in India. The court granted a divorce in appellee's favor.

{¶ 6} In the May 5, 1995 order, the High Court of Delhi also indicated that after "[c]onsidering all of the relevant circumstances like the status of the parties, their financial condition, their means, their way of life, their future necessities, [the court] thought the claim of maintenance by [appellee] for herself and her daughter at the rate of Rs. 10,000/per month [was] fully justified." The court further added that if appellant made a lump sum payment of $33,000 to appellee toward permanent alimony, her claim for an increase in monthly maintenance would be waived. The High Court of Delhi also ordered appellant to pay the sum of $33,000 "by means of a fixed deposit receipt in the name of his daughter" for her to use for her marriage. The amounts were to be paid within two months of May 5, 1995. If not, appellant was ordered to pay "arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ per month as from 1 November 1986 * * * ,

{¶ 7} A hearing was held in Trumbull County on April 20, 2000, but neither party appeared. Hence, in a decision dated April 27, 2000, the magistrate decided that appellee's motion to register a foreign support order was denied for failure to prosecute. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision on that same date. On May 4, 2000, appellee filed a motion to reinstate the registration of the foreign support order with the trial court. The trial court set the matter for a hearing. In the meantime, on September 29, 2000, appellee filed a motion for leave to amend the registration of the foreign support order. On October 10, 2000, appellant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the filing did not meet the requirements of R.C. 3115.39.

{¶ 8} In a decision dated January 18, 2001, the magistrate concluded that "[a]s a matter of due process, the [s]tate of Ohio recognizes that if two people live in a maital [sic] relationship in a jurisdiction, * * * the jurisdiction remains so long as the one party remains a resident there. * * * As a matter of due process, [appellant] was subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts. It would not offend American notions of constitutional due process to expect [appellant] to defend his obligation of support to a wife he left in India in an Indian court." Therefore, the magistrate stated that "as a matter of Comity between Nations, * * * the Orders of the High Court of Delhi are VALID and should be enforced." On February 1, 2001, appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On February 26, 2001, appellee also filed objections to the decision. The trial court overruled both appellant's and appellee's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision on March 13, 2001, from which appellant filed a timely appeal. On April 11, 2001, appellant filed a motion to stay execution, which the trial court denied.

{¶ 9} A hearing took place on April 15, 2001, for the sole purpose of calculating the dollar value of the 1995 judgment of the High Court of Delhi, which was entered in rupees. On April 25, 2001, the magistrate determined that based on the monetary conversion rate, appellant owed appellee, $138,547.23 as of March 2001, minus any payment made since November 1986. On May 8, 2001, appellant objected to the magistrate's decision. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision on May 9, 2001. Appellee filed objections on May 17, 2001, which were timely pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(3). On May 23, 2001, the trial court issued an order stating that the objections were held in abeyance since the matter was before the court of appeals. Consequently, the trial court would await the jurisdictional ruling of this court before proceeding.

{¶ 10} On June 8, 2001, appellant filed a motion to amend his notice of appeal to include the May 9, 2001 judgment entry adopting the magistrate's decision. Appellant timely filed the instant appeal and now advances a single assignment of error:

{¶ 11} "The trial court erred in recognizing the order of the Republic o[f] India on the basis of comity."

{¶ 12} On June 18, 2001, appellee filed a notice of cross-appeal from the. May 9, 2001 entry. In her cross-appeal, she presents the following five assignments for our review:

{¶ 13} "[1.] The trial court correctly found that the India order should be registered and enforced, however, the trial court erred when it adopted the decision of the magistrate and found that India was not a `state' for purposes of UIFSA and held that the India order could not be registered pursuant to UIFSA.

{¶ 14} "[2.] The trial court erred when it overruled appellee's objections to the April 25, 2001 magistrate's decision and adopted the decision of the magistrate because the magistrate did not state with specificity the amount of the arrearage.

{¶ 15} "[3.] The trial court erred when it failed to set forth the appellant's current support obligation and essentially modified the India order.

{¶ 16} "[4.] The trial court erred when it denied [appellee's] motion for attorney's fees.

{¶ 17} "[5.] The trial court erred when it granted appellant's motion to stay execution of judgment, pending appeal and when it denied appellee's motion for relief from the judgment which granted the stay."

{¶ 18} We note that this court issued a judgment entry on May 9, 2002, remanding the matter to the trial court because there was no final appealable order. The entry directed the trial court "to bifurcate the amount it determines under comity is owed for spousal support and the amount for child support. The trial court should note any determination must not be repugnant to the laws of the state of Ohio." The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 26, 2002; accordingly, we will treat this as a premature appeal. In that entry, the trial court stated:

{¶ 19} "* * * the Order of the High Court of Delhi of Ten Thousand [rupees] per month converted to spousal support as of May 5, 1995[.]

{¶ 20} "[Appellant] is to be given credit for payments made from 1986 to 1993 in the amount of Three-Thousand Four-Hundred Fifty-One Dollars ($3,451.00).

{¶ 21} "The Court finds that [appellant] owes temporary maintenance from November 1, 1986, to May 5, 1995, the sum of Seventy-Five-Thousand Nine-Hundred Fifty-Seven Dollars and Seventeen Cents ($75,957.17) less the credit for payments made of Three-Thousand Four-Hundred Fifty-One Dollars ($3,451.00) for a total of Seventy-Two-Thousand Five-Hundred Six Dollars and...