2022 CA 001260
Ky. Ct. App.Dec 14, 2023Background
- Odigwe and Andrini, after a brief relationship in law school in Indiana, had a child; Andrini returned to Michigan, filed a paternity action, and a Michigan court issued a judgment granting her custody and setting support and visitation.
- Andrini later moved with the child to Kentucky, with consent and a court order from Michigan changing the child’s legal residence, but the Michigan order otherwise remained in effect.
- Odigwe filed to register the Michigan custody order (including the child support portion) in Kentucky; he also submitted proposed orders referencing potential child support modifications related to visitation expenses.
- Andrini later moved to modify child support in Kentucky. Odigwe opposed this, arguing (1) the Michigan order was never properly registered in Kentucky, (2) Kentucky lacked personal jurisdiction over him as a nonresident, and (3) the court lacked particular case jurisdiction under UIFSA.
- The trial court ruled against Odigwe, holding the support order was effectively registered, Odigwe had submitted to jurisdiction by seeking relief regarding child support, and that he had waived objections to particular case jurisdiction.
- Odigwe appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Michigan child support order registered? | Registration requirements of UIFSA were not followed, so no registration. | Registration substantially complied with, and Odigwe filed the order himself | Odigwe waived objection by filing the order; registration effective |
| Did KY have personal jurisdiction over Odigwe? | None of the statutory grounds under UIFSA applied to Odigwe. | Odigwe submitted to jurisdiction by seeking relief/modification in KY court | Odigwe waived jurisdictional objections by seeking child support modification |
| Did KY have particular case jurisdiction? | Only Andrini moved for modification, and she is not a nonresident, so KRS 407.5611 wasn’t met. | Odigwe, as a nonresident, effectively sought modification first, waiving objection. | Objection waived; requirements deemed satisfied due to waiver |
| Did Odigwe waive jurisdictional objections? | No waiver; mere reference to support not an effective request for modification. | Waiver occurred due to explicit requests for modification/abatement in filings. | Odigwe’s conduct constituted waiver of jurisdictional arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015) (statutory registration requirements can be waived; filing an order can effectuate registration)
- Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733 (Ky. 2007) (personal jurisdiction in child support requires statutory basis)
- Gibson v. Gibson, 211 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. App. 2006) (personal jurisdiction required for child support orders)
- Commonwealth v. Steadman, 411 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. 2013) (particular case jurisdiction can be waived)