Cima-Sorci v. Sorci
17 Cal. App. 5th 875
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Father (Tyson Sorci) and Mother (Italian citizen) divorced in Italy; Italian court ordered child and spousal support (initially €1,000 child, €500 then €400 spousal).
- Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services registered the Italian support order in California under UIFSA; Father timely requested a hearing to contest registration.
- Father argued Italy is not a "state" under UIFSA because Italy’s substantive family-support laws differ and thus California lacked authority to enforce the Italian order.
- Department argued UIFSA’s definition of "state" includes a foreign jurisdiction that has laws/procedures substantially similar for issuance/enforcement of support orders, pointing to Italy’s Hague accession and Italian Private International Law Act.
- Trial court held Father bore the burden to prove Italy was not a "state," denied an evidentiary hearing/request for statement of decision (as untimely), and confirmed registration; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sorci) | Defendant's Argument (Dept.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to prove a foreign country is not a "state" under UIFSA | Burden lies on the registering party (Dept.) to show the foreign country qualifies as a "state" | The contesting party challenging registration bears burden under §4956(a) to prove a permitted defense | Court: Father (contesting party) had burden to prove Italy is not a "state"; §4956(a)(5) covers his challenge |
| Whether Italy is a "state" under UIFSA (law/procedures "substantially similar") | Italy is not a state because its substantive support laws and procedures differ materially from California | UIFSA focuses on whether foreign laws/procedures allow issuance/enforcement of support orders (not identity with CA guidelines); Italy has laws (e.g., Private International Law Act) and Hague accession | Court: Father failed to prove Italy is not a "state"; differences in substantive guidelines irrelevant to UIFSA test |
| Right to an evidentiary hearing to prove Italy is not a "state" | Father claims he asked for an evidentiary hearing and was denied opportunity to present evidence | Dept. says Father never timely sought such a hearing and assumed burden-shifting | Court: Record does not show a timely request; no denial of an evidentiary hearing established |
| Requirement for a statement of decision after court ruling on registration | Father requested statement of decision after hearing | Dept. opposed; court ruled request was untimely | Court: Request for statement of decision was untimely (made 16 days after decision submission when trial concluded in one day); none required |
Key Cases Cited
- de Leon v. Jenkins, 143 Cal.App.4th 118 (explaining UIFSA registration/confirmation procedures)
- Haker-Volkening v. Haker, 143 N.C.App. 688 (discussing evidence for foreign jurisdiction similarity to UIFSA)
- Rains v. Department of Soc. and Health Servs., 98 Wash.App. 127 (holding different statutory definition of "state" under Washington law)
- Ginns v. Savage, 61 Cal.2d 520 (principle that an opinion is not authority for issues not considered)
- County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Dept. v. Superior Court, 243 Cal.App.4th 230 (context on UIFSA adoption and scope)