Bowman v. Bowman
82 A.D.3d 144
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Petitioner and respondent, married in Washington, have a daughter born in 2005. After separation in 2007 they relocated to New York; respondent moved to California.
- Washington custody and support order granted petitioner custody and respondent visitation and child support ($479/month) with health expenses; order incorporated but did not merge.
- 2009 Saratoga County petition to modify respondent’s visitation; respondent cross-petitioned for sole custody.
- Petitioner registered the Washington support order in New York and sought upward modification; respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- Family Court granted the motion, dismissing objections; petitioner's appeal raised UIFSA/FFCCSOA interpretation and jurisdictional issues.
- Court reversed, holding FFCCSOA preempts UIFSA and New York can exercise jurisdiction to modify the Washington order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FFCCSOA preempts UIFSA on modification. | Petitioner: FFCCSOA requires only personal jurisdiction; UIFSA nonresident rule is preempted. | Respondent: FFCCSOA should be read to incorporate UIFSA nonresidency; both statutes harmonized. | FFCCSOA preempts UIFSA; NY may modify. |
| Whether NY had personal jurisdiction over respondent. | Petitioner: respondent had minimum contacts through relocation, support, and litigation in NY. | Respondent: minimal contacts insufficient by themselves. | Personal jurisdiction proper; NY may exercise for modification. |
| Whether Washington order could be modified given continuing exclusive jurisdiction ceased. | Petitioner: FFCCSOA allows modification after removal of continuing jurisdiction. | Respondent: UIFSA nonresidency and registration govern modification. | NY may modify under FFCCSOA; UIFSA preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Auclair v Bolderson, 6 AD3d 892 (2004) (interpreted FFCCSOA term to mean personal jurisdiction over nonmoving party; addresses preemption context)
- Matter of Spencer v Spencer, 10 NY3d 60 (2008) (FFCCSOA fills gaps; FFCCSOA defines modification; supports preemption of UIFSA)
- Draper v Burke, 450 Mass 676 (2008) (discusses interpretation of jurisdiction over nonmovant)