Hammack v. Moxcey
220 So. 3d 1053
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Mother (Hammack) and father (Moxcey) had a child in 2011; father (Florida resident) obtained a March 20, 2013 Florida custody judgment awarding him custody. A Florida pickup order followed.
- Mother filed a competing custody action in Alabama in April 2013; Alabama court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction (Florida had continuing exclusive jurisdiction); this dismissal was later affirmed on appeal.
- Alabama court previously held (in a separate 2013 enforcement action) that the mother had not received adequate notice of the March 18, 2013 Florida trial and dismissed the father’s petition to domesticate/enforce the first Florida pickup order; father did not appeal that dismissal.
- Florida issued a second pickup order on September 26, 2013 following an oral motion by the father; in 2015 the father sought to domesticate/enforce that second pickup order in Alabama.
- The Alabama trial court registered and enforced the second pickup order (June 2015), later stayed and amended the enforcement order after the mother challenged notice and due process; mother appealed. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Hammack’s Argument | Moxcey’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama must refuse enforcement because mother lacked notice of the Florida trial | Mother: she did not receive notice of the March 18, 2013 trial, so Florida custody determination violated UCCJEA/PKPA notice requirements and due process | Father: Florida exercised continuing jurisdiction; mother had appeared and submitted to Florida jurisdiction; no proof Florida failed to provide notice reasonably calculated to give actual notice | Held: Enforcement permitted — mother offered only her affidavit that she did not receive notice; no evidence Florida failed to provide notice reasonably calculated to give actual notice, so full faith and credit under UCCJEA §30-3B-313 was required and enforcement was proper. |
| Whether a Florida pickup order must be registered under §30-3B-305 (UCCJEA) before enforcement in Alabama | Mother: registration required and procedural defects bar enforcement | Father: pickup order enforces an underlying custody determination; registration provision applies to custody determinations, not pickup orders | Held: Pickup order is an enforcement order, not a “child custody determination”; registration under §30-3B-305 was not required and any registration error was harmless. |
| Preclusion by earlier Alabama dismissal (collateral estoppel) of the notice issue | Mother: earlier Alabama dismissal established lack of notice | Father: issue not raised by mother in the later enforcement proceedings; father not precluded here | Held: Collateral estoppel might have barred relitigation, but mother waived that defense by not asserting it in the later proceeding; court treated notice as a live factual question. |
| Standard / burden for proving lack of notice under UCCJEA/PKPA | Mother: burden met by her affidavit asserting nonreceipt of notice | Father: challenger must show that the foreign court failed to afford notice/opportunity to be heard; burden on party contesting validity | Held: Burden on challenger; mother’s subjective nonreceipt alone insufficient without proof the foreign court’s notice was deficient; the Alabama court properly required evidence that Florida failed to provide notice reasonably calculated to apprise her. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pirtek USA, LLC v. Whitehead, 51 So.3d 291 (Ala. 2010) (foreign judgment without procedural due process need not receive full faith and credit)
- Ex parte Weeks, 611 So.2d 259 (Ala. 1992) (clerk’s failure to notify of trial date violates due process only if clerk assumed and negligently failed that duty)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and afford opportunity to be heard)
- Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So.2d 34 (Ala. 2005) (doctrine of collateral estoppel and its application)
- Blanchette v. Blanchette, 476 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. 2015) (service and proof of service requirements under UCCJEA statutes interpreted to require notice reasonably calculated to provide actual notice)