Lunceford v. Lunceford, WD 65338.
| Decision Date | 07 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 65338.,WD 65338. |
| Citation | 204 S.W.3d 699 |
| Parties | Bonnie A. LUNCEFORD, Respondent, v. John H. LUNCEFORD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ronald L. Jurgeson, Esq., Lee's Summit, MO, for appellant.
William A. Mayer, Esq., Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Before ELLIS, P.J., LOWENSTEIN and SPINDEN, JJ.
John Lunceford appeals a judgment entered by the circuit court of Jackson County, awarding child support arrearage of $3,770 and $1,000 of attorney's fees to Bonnie Lunceford.
The marriage of Bonnie Lunceford ("Mother") and John Lunceford ("Father") was dissolved in West Germany in 1989. Under the decree entered in West Germany, John Lunceford was awarded sole custody of the couple's only child, Nicole, who was born September 13, 1986, in Kansas. (A chronology of events appears infra.)
Subsequent to their return to the United States, by agreement of the parties, the West German decree was adopted and modified by a Kansas court in 1991. The modified decree awarded "primary residential custody" of Nicole to Mother, then a resident of New Jersey. Father remained a Kansas resident and was ordered to pay child support to Mother.
In January 2001, Mother, still a resident in New Jersey, moved to modify child support in a Kansas. At that time, Father was a Missouri resident. The Kansas court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to modify the support order. Mother then moved to transfer the action to New Jersey. The Kansas court determined that Missouri, not it nor New Jersey, had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the order, but the Kansas court transferred the entire action to Missouri in August 2002.
Father moved to Tennessee sometime between August 2002 and October 2003. In October 2003, the Missouri court increased the child support and ordered father to pay Mother's attorneys' fees. Mother registered the 2003 Missouri support order in Tennessee for enforcement.
In August 2004, Mother again came before a Missouri court petitioning for an increase in child support. In response, Father moved to terminate child support pursuant to the Kansas decree, as Nicole would soon attain the age of 18 in September 2004. Father's motion to terminate support was denied and the Missouri trial court entered judgment for mother in February 2005. Mother's motion to increase child support was denied; however, the trial court did order Father to pay Mother a child support arrearage of $3,770.1 Court costs and $1,000 of Mother's attorneys' fees were assessed against Father. Father, pursuant to Section 452.340.3(5),2 was ordered to continue paying $754 per month child support while Nicole was enrolled in an institution of higher learning.
The court granted Father's motion for a stay pending appeal. Father filed this appeal in April 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 Parties marry in Kansas. Child born in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1987 Parties live in W. Germany, Husband in the Army
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 Parties separate
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 Divorce in W. Germany. Custody to Father. Mother
and child move to New Jersey. Father stays in
Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Divorce Decree adopted and modified and registered
in Kansas (by agreement). Custody to Mother
(who is still in New Jersey), and Father to pay
$50.00 support
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Father now in Missouri. Mother in New Jersey
Mother files in Kansas to increase child support to
$675. Father objected to the Kansas hearing case
since neither party, nor the child resided in Kansas.
Mother's motion for increase granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Mother files in Kansas to transfer to New Jersey.
Father files to transfer to New Jersey. Kansas
says that only Missouri has jurisdiction, and transfers
to Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 Mother files for modification in Missouri. Father
now lives in Tennessee. Mother files judgment in
Tennessee. Missouri increases support to $754
monthly, retroactive to 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Mother files another motion in Missouri to modify.
Child graduates from high school and turns eighteen
years old on September 13. In October, Father
files to terminate child support and declare
child emancipated under Kansas law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Missouri trial court finds that upon transfer from
Kansas to Missouri, and Mother's modification in
2003, the judgment became "subject to the laws of
the State of Missouri," and, in this state, "an
obligor's support obligation does not automatically
terminate upon the child's eighteenth birthday."
The court then denied Father's 2004 motion.
Missouri court also denied Mother's motion to
increase support, and orders payment of the arrearage
($3,770), for the time Father did not pay,
and awards Mother $1,000 in attorneys' fees (stay
is granted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mother has been a resident of New Jersey since 1990. Daughter has been a New Jersey resident since moving back to this country and has never been a Missouri resident. Father has been a Tennessee resident since May 2003.
Husband asserts that the trial court had no jurisdiction in 2005 to entertain Wife's motion to modify support and, for that matter, to assess an arrearage and award her attorney's fees. Alternatively, he suggests the trial court should have ruled favorably on his motion to terminate support based on Kansas law, which would have determined the child was emancipated at the age of eighteen. If Kansas law does apply to the duration of child support, as opposed to the amount of support, then the question arises as to whether Missouri had jurisdiction to declare Father's obligation case in September 2003. There is no question here that Kansas law would have rendered the child emancipated on her eighteenth birthday. The standard of review is under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and focuses here on whether the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law.
Issues of subject matter jurisdiction are inherent in any case on appeal. Taylor v. Taylor, 908 S.W.2d 361, 363 n. 1 (Mo.App.1995). "Subject matter jurisdiction exists only when a court ... has the right to proceed to determine the controversy at issue or grant the relief requested." Garcia-Huerta v. Garcia, 108 S.W.3d 684, 686 (Mo.App.2003). Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by operation of law. Mo. Soybean Assoc. v. Mo. Clean Water Comm'n, 102 S.W.3d 10, 22 (Mo. banc 2003).
In child support determination, subject matter jurisdiction is governed by the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA") codified in Missouri at Sections 454.850, et seq.3 Drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, UIFSA was enacted in Missouri in 1997. Section 454.850. UIFSA only addresses child support and issues of paternity and parentage. State ex rel. Dep't. of Soc. Serv. v. Hudson, 158 S.W.3d 319, 323 (Mo.App.2005).
Under UIFSA, child support is subject to a one-order system, whereby only one state's child support order governs at any given time. Superior Court v. Ricketts, 153 Md.App. 281, 836 A.2d 707, 729 (2003). The state issuing the child support order enjoys continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order. Section 454.867. By providing a single tribunal with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to establish or modify the support order, UIFSA seeks to avoid problems that arise from multiple orders in multiple states. Reis v. Zimmer, 263 A.D.2d 136, 700 N.Y.S.2d 609, 613 (1999).
The issuing tribunal retains its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the support order except in exceptional circumstances as provided in Section 454.867(a), Missouri's enactment of UIFSA Section 205:4
(a) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order:
(1) as long as this state remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(2) until each individual party has filed written consent with the tribunal of this state for a tribunal of another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
The drafters of UIFSA note in their comment to Section 205 that if all the relevant persons — namely the obligor, oblige, and the child — have left the issuing state, that state no longer has an appropriate nexus to the parties to justify the continuing jurisdiction over the child support order. Unif. Interstate Family Support Act § 205 cmt., 9 U.L.A. 284 (2001) (). Although the issuing state loses jurisdiction to modify the child support order if all the parties leave the state, until the order is modified by another state in accordance with UIFSA, the issuing state's order remains in effect not only in the issuing state but also in any state in which the order has been registered. Id.
Missouri courts have not directly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sidell v. Sidell
...372, 376 (2004); In re Marriage of Metz, 31 Kan.App.2d 623, 69 P.3d 1128, 1133 (2003); Jurado, 782 So.2d at 581; Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Mo.Ct.App.2006); Youssefi v. Youssefi, 328 N.J.Super. 12, 744 A.2d 662, 669 (App.Div.2000); Commonwealth ex rel. Kenitzer v. Richter,......
-
Castro v. Haugh (In re Haugh)
...version thereof has interpreted that phrase consistent with our interpretation of section 4909. For example, in Lunceford v. Lunceford (Mo.App.2006) 204 S.W.3d 699, the court stated: “ Virtually every jurisdiction that has addressed this issue has concluded that the issuing tribunal loses s......
-
Collins v. Dep't of Health, & Family Servs. ex rel. Paczek
...under [the] UIFSA because the parties no longer resided in Texas).’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 690 (quoting Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699, 704 (Mo.Ct.App.2006) ).The Haugh court's recitation of how other jurisdictions have interpreted continuing exclusive jurisdiction under t......
-
Lattimore v. Lattimore
...of § 205(a) have held that that section lends itself to at least two differing interpretations. See, e.g., Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Mo.Ct. App.2006); Zaabel v. Konetski, 209 Ill.2d 127, 134, 807 N.E.2d 372, 375, 282 Ill.Dec. 748, 751 (2004). As those courts have explaine......
-
Section 24.30 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
...could not modify an out-of-state child support order, it did have jurisdiction to enforce the order. See also Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006), which held that, while the trial court has jurisdiction to enforce child support orders, it does not have subject matter......
-
Section 25.48 Choice of Law in Hearing on Modification Request
...aspect of the child support order, which could not be modified in the issuing state. Kerr, 100 S.W.3d at 914–15. Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699, 707–10 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006), overruled in part by Ware, 337 S.W.3d at 725–26, addresses which state’s law controls the duration of child s......
-
Section 25.15 Concepts of Jurisdiction and Limitations
...v. Kerr, 100 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) · Straight v. Straight, 195 S.W.3d 461 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) · Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699, 702, 704 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) · State ex rel. Brantingham v. Grate, 205 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) · In re Marriage of Stewart, 2......