918 N.W.2d 336
Neb. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ronald J. Clark (Nebraska resident) sought a Nebraska court ruling to determine whether a Nebraska child-support order (divorce decree 1999, modified 2002) or an earlier Wisconsin support order (1990, consolidated with a paternity/birth-expense case) was the controlling order and asked for reduction/vacatur of Nebraska support.
- Wisconsin had entered earlier orders: a 1989 order for birth expenses and a 1990 family-court order setting support; those Wisconsin matters were later consolidated.
- Clark filed suit in Lancaster County (2016), served Carter (the obligee, Wisconsin resident); Carter sent a letter to the Nebraska court but did not appear at trial.
- The Nebraska district court dismissed Clark’s amended complaint, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the out-of-state (Wisconsin) matter and lacked sufficient evidence to determine the controlling order.
- On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals held the action fell under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the Nebraska court had subject-matter jurisdiction and, because Carter’s letter waived contest to personal jurisdiction, the court had personal jurisdiction as well; the court reversed and remanded for the district court to communicate with Wisconsin tribunals and develop the record per UIFSA procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska court had authority under UIFSA to determine which of two interstate support orders controls | Clark argued his complaint invoked UIFSA §42-711 and asked Nebraska tribunal to determine controlling order | District court said it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Wisconsin order and insufficient evidence to decide | Court of Appeals: action fits UIFSA; Nebraska tribunal has subject-matter jurisdiction to determine controlling order if personal jurisdiction exists |
| Whether Nebraska court had personal jurisdiction over the Wisconsin obligee (Carter) | Clark argued Carter’s filing in the Nebraska case waived jurisdictional objection | Carter contended (implicitly by non-appearance) she was not subject to Nebraska jurisdiction | Court: Carter’s written submission constituted a responsive document waiving contest to personal jurisdiction under UIFSA §42-705; personal jurisdiction existed |
| Whether record/evidence was insufficient to determine controlling order | Clark produced copies of orders and payment records and sought coordination with Wisconsin tribunal | District court said it lacked necessary information from Wisconsin to decide | Court: UIFSA provides procedures (communication, discovery, forwarding petitions) to obtain needed information; remand to obtain information and make §42-711 findings |
| Whether equitable relief is available outside UIFSA remedy | Clark’s counsel also sought equitable relief | District court entertained equitable argument to support relief | Court: equity not available where adequate statutory remedy exists; must pursue UIFSA procedures first |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Foster, 260 Neb. 887 (2000) (discusses UIFSA purpose: unify interstate support law and provide one controlling tribunal)
- TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Nicholas Family, 299 Neb. 276 (2018) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Friedman v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973 (2015) (general appearance without preserving jurisdictional objection waives personal jurisdiction)
- Bock v. Dalbey, 283 Neb. 994 (2012) (equity will not entertain jurisdiction when statute provides adequate remedy)
- State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F., 288 Neb. 106 (2014) (equitable remedies generally not available where adequate legal remedy exists)
- Ganser v. County of Lancaster, 215 Neb. 313 (1983) (suit in equity will not lie when plaintiff has plain and adequate remedy at law)