Williams v. Williams

• Citation: 734 S.E.2d 186,61 Va.App. 170
• Decision Date: 27 November 2012
• Docket Number: Record No. 0476–12–4.
• Parties: Kent M. WILLIAMS v. Kimberly D. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia

61 Va.App. 170

734 S.E.2d 186

Kent M. WILLIAMS

v.Kimberly D. WILLIAMS.

Record No. 0476–12–4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia,

Alexandria.

Nov. 27, 2012.

John L. Bauserman, Jr. (Pikrallidas & Associates, on brief), Fairfax, for appellant.

No brief or argument for appellee.

Present: FELTON, C.J., and ALSTON and McCULLOUGH, JJ.

ALSTON, JR., Judge.

Kent Williams (father) appeals an order dismissing his motion to modify child support for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, father argues that the trial judge of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (trial judge) erred by (1) relying upon Code § 20–79(c) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Code §§ 20–88.32 to 20–88.82, as her basis for dismissing father's motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, “instead of treating the issue in controversy as a matter of venue only and not of subject matter jurisdiction”; and (2) finding the Circuit Court of Fairfax County lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the final child support order of the Circuit Court of Fauquier County although both parties resided within the Circuit Court of Fairfax County's jurisdiction and neither had contested venue. In the alternative, father argues that the trial judge erred in declining to transfer the case back to the Circuit Court of Fauquier County instead of dismissing it.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Father and Kimberly D. Williams (mother) were married in 1988 and had two children, one born in 1993 and the other born in 1996. On December 21, 1999, the Circuit Court of Fauquier County granted father and mother a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The final decree of divorce entered by the Circuit Court of Fauquier County incorporated a custody, visitation and child support order. The order required father to pay child support to mother through the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE). There is nothing in the record that indicates that the Circuit Court of Fauquier County transferred the case to the Fauquier County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court or, for that matter, any other court for enforcement of the Circuit Court of Fauquier County's child support order.

Subsequently, DCSE and mother filed a rule to show cause against father in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County, alleging father had failed to pay his required child support. Father and mother also both filed motions to modify child support before the Circuit Court of Fauquier County. On June 14, 2002, the Circuit Court of Fauquier County found father in contempt of court for his failure to pay the full amount of child support due and modified and increased father's child support obligation from $1,536.33 to $1,566 per month, effective December 1, 2001. The June 14, 2002 order did not transfer the case to a juvenile and domestic relations district court (JDR court) or any other court for enforcement of the order.

By 2006, both father and mother had moved to Fairfax County. Mother was the sole custodian of the children.

Shortly before the parties' older child prepared to leave for college, mother sought to modify the child support agreement. She filed a motion on May 16, 2011, in the Fauquier County JDR court to transfer venue to the Fairfax County JDR court, despite the fact that the Circuit Court of Fauquier County had not transferred the case to the Fauquier County JDR court or any other court. In turn, father filed a motion to modify child support on June 30, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. His motion noted mother's motion in the Fauquier County JDR court, but he argued that the Fauquier County JDR court did not have jurisdiction and that the Circuit Court of Fairfax County was the “proper and preferred venue in which to hear this matter.”

DCSE was not named as a party in father's motion to modify child support, but it filed a motion for leave to intervene in the Fairfax Circuit Court action and to dismiss father's motion on January 10, 2012. In support of its motion, DCSE filed a memorandum arguing that the Circuit Court of Fairfax County lacked jurisdiction in the case because the Circuit Court of Fauquier County retained jurisdiction. DCSE argued that “[t]he public policy reasons for the retention of jurisdiction by a court entering an order are the same as one of the fundamental principles underlying the adoption of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Code §§ 20–88.32 [to 20–88.82]: to deter the entry of competing and conflicting orders of support in multiple jurisdictions,” that Code § 20–79(c) prescribed the only manner by which a support case may be transferred, and that the Circuit Court of Fairfax County was not an appropriate transferee court under Code § 20–79(c).

The trial judge held a hearing on DCSE's motion on January 27, 2012. The trial judge declined to rule on DCSE's motion to intervene, but agreed to hear arguments on whether father's motion should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All of the recognized parties to the Fairfax action agreed that the Circuit Court of Fauquier County had neither transferred the case nor relinquished jurisdiction to any other circuit or JDR court. Mother adopted DCSE's arguments regarding the purported lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County.

The trial judge first determined that the primary issue before her was one of subject matter jurisdiction that she could raise sua sponte. The trial judge held that the Circuit Court of Fairfax County did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear father's motion. In so holding, the trial judge concluded that Code § 20–79(c) defines and limits the ability of a circuit court entering a final decree of divorce to transfer matters concerning the support and maintenance of a child or spouse and requires that such a transfer be to the JDR court in the same jurisdiction where the decree was entered or any JDR court within the Commonwealth that is a more appropriate forum. In making this determination, the trial judge also noted that the purpose of Code § 20–79(c) is to deter the issuance of competing and conflicting orders between jurisdictions as well as forum shopping between circuits after an unfavorable decision, “as there is no procedure to transfer directly from one circuit court to another for enforcement or modification of support matters upon the entry of a final decree.”

The trial judge issued her written order on February 10, 2012, stating that the case was dismissed for “lack of jurisdiction” for the reasons set forth in DCSE's memorandum and adopted by mother. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, father alleges that the trial judge erred in dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the parties resided in Fairfax County and venue was proper in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County and because the trial judge erroneously relied upon Code § 20–79(c) and UIFSA in support of her decision.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Venue Distinguished

At the outset, we note that the issue in this case involves the question of subject matter jurisdiction, not territorial jurisdiction or venue.

“ ‘Jurisdiction’ is a word of many, too many meanings.” United States v. Vanness, 85 F.3d 661, 663 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1996), quoted in Hitt Construction v. Pratt, 53 Va.App. 422, 425, 672 S.E.2d 904, 905 (2009). In Morrison v. Bestler, 239 Va. 166, 387 S.E.2d 753 (1990), the Supreme Court of Virginia clarified the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction, also known as venue:

The term jurisdiction embraces several concepts including subject matter jurisdiction, which is the authority granted through constitution or statute to adjudicate a class of cases or controversies; territorial jurisdiction, that is, authority over persons, things, or occurrences located in a defined geographic area; notice jurisdiction, or effective notice to a party or if the proceeding is in rem seizure of a res; and “the other conditions of fact must exist which are demanded by the unwritten or statute law as the prerequisites of the authority of the court to proceed to judgment or decree.” Farant Investment Corp. v. Francis, 138 Va. 417, 427–28, 122 S.E. 141, 144 (1924).

While these elements are necessary to enable a court to proceed to a valid judgment,there is a significant difference between subject matter jurisdiction and the other “jurisdictional” elements. Subject matter jurisdiction alone cannot be waived or conferred on the court by agreement of the parties. Lucas v. Biller, 204 Va. 309, 313, 130 S.E.2d 582, 585 (1963). A defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be cured by reissuance of process, passage of time, or pleading amendment. While a court always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, a judgment on the merits made without subject matter jurisdiction is null and void. Barnes v. American Fert. Co., 144 Va. 692, 705, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925). Likewise, any subsequent proceeding based on such a defective judgment is void or a nullity. Ferry Co. v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 428, 432, 83 S.E.2d 782, 784 (1954).

Morrison, 239 Va. at 169–70, 387 S.E.2d at 755–56.

Later, in Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 661 S.E.2d 415 (2008), the Supreme Court of Virginia elucidated this passage from Morrison, stating that it

reflects the long-standing distinction between subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be granted or waived by the parties and the lack of which renders an act of the court void, and territorial jurisdiction or venue. The latter goes to the authority of the court to act in particular circumstances or places and is waived if not properly and timely raised.

Id. at 229, 661 S.E.2d at 427.

Father alleges that the trial judge erred in treating the issue in the instant case as one of subject matter jurisdiction rather than venue. Father argues that because circuit courts...