Gwender Lagrone Taylor v. Ian W. Taylor, Sr.
A16-577
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- In 2002 a Tennessee court ordered Ian W. Taylor, Sr. to pay child support to Gwender Lagrone Taylor; he later fell into arrears. A 2013 Louisiana order found arrears of $49,735.66 and set payments at $100/month.
- In Sept. 2015 Gwender (then in Minnesota) moved in Washington County, MN, to increase Ian’s monthly arrears payment; Ian (then in Florida) moved to dismiss for lack of Minnesota jurisdiction.
- The district court allowed Ian to attend the Dec. 11, 2015 hearing by phone; the court called him (and an alternate number) but could not reach him, left voicemail, and proceeded with the hearing without him.
- The court increased the monthly payment from $100 to $250. Ian moved for a new trial/hearing and later to vacate; his motions were denied after a March 11, 2016 telephone hearing in which he participated.
- Ian appealed, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction, improper increase without registration of the Louisiana order, that Gwender should not have appeared pro se, and a due-process violation for proceeding without him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gwender) | Defendant's Argument (Ian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Gwender: Ian previously invoked MN court by seeking custody change (waiver) | Ian: Minnesota lacks personal jurisdiction; proper jurisdiction is Louisiana | Court: Waiver—Ian previously invoked the court; no jurisdictional defect |
| Increase without registration | Gwender: No timely objection; district court could raise arrears payment | Ian: 2013 Louisiana order was not registered in MN, so increase improper | Court: Not preserved on appeal (issue first raised post-trial) |
| Pro se representation by Gwender | Gwender: Permitted to represent herself; no disqualifying restriction | Ian: Gwender received county child-support services and should not appear pro se | Court: Not preserved for appeal; no authority provided by Ian |
| Due process for hearing in absence | Gwender: Court gave notice and attempted contact; proceeding appropriate | Ian: Hearing proceeded without his participation, violating due process | Court: No due-process violation—notice and opportunity existed; court reasonably attempted telephonic participation and could proceed when Ian was unreachable |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Wu Family Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2000) (invoking court jurisdiction waives lack of personal-jurisdiction defense)
- Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., 842 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. App. 2014) (appellate review limited to issues presented to trial court)
- Thayer v. Financial Advisers, Inc., 322 N.W.2d 599 (Minn. 1982) (issues not presented to the trial court are generally not considered on appeal)
- Grigsby v. Grigsby, 648 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. App. 2002) (issues first raised in post-trial motions are untimely)
- Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 2012) (two-step due-process analysis: protected interest inquiry, then adequacy of process)
- Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. App. 2007) (trial courts have discretion to proceed when absent party fails to appear by phone; due process not violated)
- In re Welfare of Children of Coats, 633 N.W.2d 505 (Minn. 2001) (due process violation occurs only where proceeding is a sham rather than a real judicial hearing)