Lilly v. Lilly, 2011 UT App 53 (Utah Court of Appeals, February 25, 2011).
Father physically resides in California due to his active duty service in the military. The parties were divorced in California and subsequently mother and child moved to Utah. Father filed a Petition to modify the child support order in Utah because Utah was the resident state of the child, Mother and Father. The trial court denied the Petition based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because father physically lived in California. Father appealed.
The Court of Appeals found that Utah has subject matter jurisdiction because Father is domiciled in Utah. Under UIFSA, a state that enters the child support order maintains jurisdiction over child support if the child, obligor, or obligee continue to reside in that state. The Court of Appeals found that ‘reside’ under the statute refers to a person’s domicile, the place at which the person has been physically present, and where he intends to return, and which he regards as home. Because the trial court had failed to determine Father’s domicile, the Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded the case to determine Father’s domicile to determine whether Utah has subject matter jurisdiction to modify the child support.
Full Decision available at http://utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/lilly022511.pdf
Posts
