Arquette v. Rutter
150 So. 3d 1259
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother (Gabriela Arquette) and Father (Derrik Rutter) divorced in California in 2005; the final judgment included a child support order for their child born in 2000.
- After the divorce, Father moved to Florida (remains a Florida resident); Mother and the child moved to Georgia in 2007 (both reside in Georgia).
- In 2008 Father petitioned in Florida to domesticate the California support judgment and to modify child support; the Florida trial court granted modification in 2009.
- In 2012 Mother moved to vacate the Florida order, arguing lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction under the FFCCSOA and Florida’s UIFSA; the trial court denied the motion.
- The appellate court reviewed whether Florida had authority to modify a foreign (California) child support order when neither the child nor the obligee reside in the issuing state and consent or Florida jurisdiction over the respondent was not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida had subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the California child support order after California lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction | Arquette: Florida lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because neither she nor the child reside in Florida and California remained the issuing state until conditions for transfer met | Rutter: Florida could domesticate and modify the California order because Father is a Florida resident and registered the foreign order | Reversed: Florida lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because (1) California lost continuing jurisdiction but that alone doesn’t confer jurisdiction on Florida; (2) petitioner was a Florida resident (so §88.6111(1)(a)(2) not satisfied); (3) no consent filed in California nor evidence Florida had personal jurisdiction over the child |
Key Cases Cited
- Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So.2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (explains UIFSA conditions under which a non-issuing state may modify an order)
- Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So.3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (loss of issuing state’s continuing, exclusive jurisdiction doesn’t automatically confer jurisdiction on another state)
- Bowman v. Bowman, 82 A.D.3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div.) (discusses limits on transfer of modification authority between states)
- Jesse v. Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Robinson, 711 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (personal jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. §48.193 does not by itself confer subject-matter jurisdiction to modify a foreign child support order)
- McGhee v. Biggs, 974 So.2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (judgment entered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void and subject to collateral attack)
- Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (same principle on collateral attack under rule 1.540)
- Mannino v. Mannino, 980 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reiterates relief available when a court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction)
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to vacate the Florida order modifying the California child support order.