Marriage of Zinke, In re, 97CA2152

CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado
Citation967 P.2d 210
Docket NumberNo. 97CA2152,97CA2152
Parties1999 CJ C.A.R. 8 In re the MARRIAGE OF Wade A. ZINKE, Appellee, and Kori Lynn Wavra, Appellant. . IV
Decision Date01 October 1998

Page 210

967 P.2d 210
1999 CJ C.A.R. 8
In re the MARRIAGE OF Wade A. ZINKE, Appellee,
Kori Lynn Wavra, Appellant.
No. 97CA2152.
Colorado Court of Appeals,
Div. IV.
Oct. 1, 1998.

Page 211

Evan Freirich, P.C., Evan Freirich, Boulder, for Appellee.

Law Office of Timms R. Fowler, Timms R. Fowler, Fort Collins, for Appellant.

Opinion by Judge KAPELKE.

Kori Lynn Wavra (wife) appeals from the trial court's orders determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on a motion for child support filed by Wade A. Zinke (husband), and approving a stipulated support order. We vacate the orders.

The parties were divorced in Montana in 1982. At that time, wife was granted custody of the minor child and father was ordered to pay child support. In 1991, wife agreed to allow the child to live with father in Colorado. It is undisputed that wife continues to reside in Montana while father and the child now reside in this state.

In 1996, husband filed a verified petition for custody under § 14-10-123, C.R.S.1998, and a motion under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), § 14-13-101, et seq., C.R.S.1998, for a determination of custody jurisdiction.

The trial court entered two orders concerning jurisdiction as to the issue of custody. In October 1996, after conferring with the court in Montana, the trial court determined that the courts of both Montana and Colorado had custody jurisdiction. However, the decision regarding which court should exercise that jurisdiction was deferred until the parties had had an opportunity to present their positions. After again conferring with the Montana court, the court ruled in February 1997 that Colorado was the more convenient forum to exercise jurisdiction regarding "ongoing child support, custody, parenting time, and related issues."

In April 1997, husband filed a motion for establishment of child support, asserting that the voluntary change of custody constituted a continuing and substantial change in circumstances that warranted entry of an order requiring wife to pay child support to him from the date that the change in physical custody had occurred. Wife sought dismissal of the motion for child support and an amendment of the Colorado court's order, asserting that the UCCJA does not apply to support actions and that the trial court lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Montana support decree. The court summarily denied wife's motion on June 18, 1997.

Based upon the rulings on jurisdiction, and without waiving their positions concerning the court's jurisdiction and other unresolved issues, the parties stipulated in September 1997 to parenting time and child support pending review. The court entered its order approving that agreement on October 28, 1997, and wife's appeal was timely filed from that order.


Wife contends that the Colorado court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to establish child support because the Montana court had previously issued a support order and, therefore, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), § 14-5-101, et seq., C.R.S.1998, retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify that order. Thus, wife contends that the orders determining that the Colorado court had jurisdiction over the issue of child support were erroneous and that the later order purporting to modify the Montana child support order was void. We agree.

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).

As wife points out, the provisions of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • In re Garrett, 03-60327.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • 30 Septiembre 2004 other states. See also, LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490; State ex rel. Freeman v. Sadlier, 586 N.W.2d 171 (S.D.1998); In re Marriage of Zinke, 967 P.2d 210 (Colo.Ct. The evidence in this case establishes that, under both the FFCCSOA and UISA, the issuing court in California in 1996 retained "co......
  • Laurienti v. Bicha, Civil Action No. 14-cv-02592-NYW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • 9 Febrero 2016
    ...the same parties and children, that had previously persisted in the interstate enforcement of child support." In re Marriage of Zinke, 967 P.2d 210, 212 (Colo. App. 1998) (citing People in Interest of R.L.H., 942 P.2d 1386 (Colo. App. 1997)). Colorado and Georgia have each codified the UIFS......
  • Badeaux v. Davis, 3047.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 20 Septiembre 1999
    ...150 Or. App. 323, 946 P.2d 305 (1997); State, Dept. of Human Services v. Jacoby, 975 P.2d 939, (Utah App.1999); In re Marriage of Zinke, 967 P.2d 210 (Colo.App.1998); Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Cook, 60 Ark.App. 193, 959 S.W.2d 763 (1998); Peddar v. Peddar, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 192, ......
  • Hamilton v. Foster, S-99-1349.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 15 Diciembre 2000
    ...OCSE v. Clemmons, 65 Ark.App. 84, 984 S.W.2d 837 (1999); Reis v. Zimmer, 263 A.D.2d 136, 700 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1999); In re Marriage of Zinke, 967 P.2d 210 (Colo.App.1998); Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. App.1995). UIFSA provides a system where only one child support order may be in effe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT