Wareham v. Wareham
Decision Date | 07 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. A10-726.,A10-726. |
Citation | 791 N.W.2d 562 |
Parties | In re the Marriage of Denise Michelle WAREHAM, n/k/a Denise Michelle Montgomery, petitioner, Appellant, v. Robert David WAREHAM, Respondent. |
Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A Minnesota tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its prior child-support order under Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a) (2008)-even if all of the parties and their children are no longer Minnesota residents-until all of the parties have filed written consents for another state's tribunal to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order.
Theresa M. Gerlach, Law Offices of Theresa Gerlach, PLLC, Hastings, MN, for appellant.
Robert D. Wareham, APO, AE, pro se respondent.
Considered and decided by LARKIN, Presiding Judge; PETERSON, Judge; and HUDSON, Judge.
Appellant-mother challenges the order of the child-support magistrate (CSM), dismissing her motion for child-support modification on the ground that the Minnesota tribunal lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its prior support order because neither the parties nor the children for whose benefit the order was issued currently reside in this state. Because the parties have not filed written consents for another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order, the Minnesota tribunal maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The Goodhue County district court dissolved the marriage of appellant Denise Michelle Montgomery and respondent Robert David Wareham by judgment in 1998. At that time, appellant was employed part-time as a city clerk, and respondent was stationed overseas on active duty with the armed services of the UnitedStates, with a residence in Washington state. The judgment awarded the parties joint legal custody of their three minor children, awarded appellant sole physical custody of the children, and directed respondent to pay appellant child support. After the judgment, appellant moved with the children to Kentucky but continued to receive non-public assistance child-support payments through Goodhue County under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 654(4) (2006).
In January 2010, appellant moved the Goodhue County district court to modify the existing child-support order, which applied to the parties' two then-minor children. Appellant argued that an increase in respondent's income and a decrease in appellant's income amounted to a substantial change in circumstances that made the existing support order unreasonable and unfair. At a hearing before a CSM, appellant appeared with counsel, and respondent appeared pro se by telephone from Germany, where he was stationed.
At the hearing, the CSM questioned whether the Minnesota district court retained subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy because neither party, nor their joint children, currently reside in Minnesota. The CSM then issued her order, concluding that, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a), Minnesota no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the prior child-support order because neither of the parties, nor their joint children for whose benefit the order was imposed, reside in Minnesota. The CSM, therefore, ordered that the motion be dismissed. This appeal follows.
Did the CSM err by determining that a Minnesota tribunal lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child-support order, when both parties and the children who are the subject of the order are no longer Minnesota residents?
Appellant challenges the CSM's order determining that the Minnesota tribunal lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its prior child-support order under Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a). "Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction," in the context of the UIFSA, refers to subject-matter jurisdiction. Porro v. Porro, 675 N.W.2d 82, 86-87 (Minn.App.2004). The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction and a determination of the meaning of statutes addressing subject-matter jurisdiction present legal questions, which this court reviews de novo. Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319, 321-22 (Minn.App.1999). Therefore, we review de novo whether the Minnesota tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its prior child-support order. See Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn.App.2000) ( ).
The UIFSA, which has been adopted by all 50 states, addresses "jurisdiction to modify and enforce child-support orders." In re Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123, 126 (Minn.App.2008), review denied (Minn. Dec. 16, 2008). The Minnesota legislature adopted the 1996 version of the UIFSA, which is now codified as Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.101-.902 (2008). Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a) addresses whether a Minnesota tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its previously issued child-support order, when no other state is involved. That section provides:
Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a).
The CSM concluded that, under Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a)(1), the Minnesota tribunal lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the parties' support order because neither party nor the children for whose benefit the order was issued currently reside in Minnesota. Appellant argues, however, that because the parties have not yet filed written consents in Minnesota for a court of another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a)(2) applies separately to give Minnesota continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order.
To determine a statute's meaning, this court first looks to the statutory language. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008). We adhere to a statute's plain and ordinary meaning, based on ordinary usage of words and grammatical rules, and we read relevant statutory sections together. Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1) (2008); Occhino v. Grover, 640 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn.App.2002), review denied . We will engage in further judicial construction only if a statute is ambiguous or reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn.1999).
Here, the plain language of Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a) provides that a Minnesota tribunal that has issued a child-support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order: "(1) as long as [Minnesota] remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or (2) until all of the parties who are individuals have filed written consents" in the Minnesota district court for a different state's tribunal to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a)(1), (2) (emphasis added). We normally read the word "or" as disjunctive, rather than conjunctive. Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 283 (Minn.2008) (citing Amaral, 598 N.W.2d at 385). Therefore, based on a plain-language reading of Minn.Stat. § 518C.205(a), we conclude that the statute sets forth two distinct circumstances under which a Minnesota tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its previously issued child-support order: where at least one of the parties or the covered children remains a Minnesota resident (subsection (a)(1)), or where at least one of the parties has not filed a written consent for a different state's tribunal to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (subsection (a)(2)).
Because neither the parties nor their children are currently Minnesota residents, subsection (1) does not apply. But the record contains no evidence that the parties have filed written consents with the Minnesota tribunal transferring continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child-support order to another state.1 Therefore, because the parties have not filed such written consents, subsection (2) applies, and the Minnesota courts retain continuing,exclusive jurisdiction over the parties' previous Minnesota support order.2
We recognize that other states have interpreted section 205 of the 1996 version of the UIFSA to reach a contrary result. See, e.g., Jurado v. Brashear, 782 So.2d 575, 580 (La.2001) ( ); Gibson v. Gibson, 211 S.W.3d 601, 606-09 (Ky.App.2006) ( ). These cases rely, in part, on the official comment to section 205 of the 1996 version of the UIFSA, which states that if the parties and their child "have permanently left the issuing state, the issuing state no longer has an appropriate nexus with the parties or child to justify exercise of jurisdiction to modify." Unif. Interstate Family Support Act § 205 cmt., 9 U.L.A. Pt. IB 340 (1996). Under such circumstances, "the issuing tribunal has no current information about the factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Castro v. Haugh (In re Haugh)
... ... Our research located only one decision in another state that holds contrary to our interpretation of section 4909. In Wareham v. Wareham (Minn.App.2010) 791 N.W.2d 562, a Minnesota appellate court interpreted a Minnesota statute with language similar to our section 4909, ... ...
-
Collins v. Dep't of Health, & Family Servs. ex rel. Paczek
...that an issuing state retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction after all parties have left the state. See In re Marriage of Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562, 565–66 (Minn.Ct.App.2010) (holding that “an issuing Minnesota tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its child-support orde......
-
Stearns Bank, N.A. v. Burnes-Leverenz
...of statutes relating to subject-matter jurisdiction present legal issues, which this court also reviews de novo. Wareham v. Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Minn. App. 2010). If a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to address an issue, its judgment relating to that issue is void.......
-
In re Lindmark Endowment for Corp.-Bus. Ethics Fund
...(Minn. 2010). The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a legal question, which this court reviews de novo. Wareham v. Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Minn. App. 2010). The endowment is not a contract. Lindmark argues that UPMIFA does not apply because the "Endowment is a contract . . .......