UIFSA Grants Jurisdiction to Enforce Not to Modify

Osborne v. Osborne, 2011 UT App 150 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 12, 2011)

Osbornes divorced in Arkansas.  Mrs. Osborne moved to Utah and had her Decree domesticated under UFISA and filed for the entry of a QDRO and back alimony.  She was granted the QDRO and back alimony.  Mr. appealed arguing that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals found that UIFSA does not give Utah courts the power to modify the Decree, but does allow for enforcement thereof.  The filing of the QDRO and ordering of back support are enforcement issues.  The case must be transferred in order for a decree to be modified.  Also, the Court did not err in finding that Mr. owed the back alimony payments.  (Mrs. Was to be paid alimony until she began to receive her distribution of the railroad retirement benefits).

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/osborne051211.pdf

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under UIFSA is Based on Domicile

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