In Re the Marriage Marsalis
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1971
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Marsalis family moved from Louisiana to Panola County, Texas, in 2009 and put their Louisiana home on the market.
- James filed a Texas divorce petition in Panola County on July 29, 2009 seeking dissolution, division of property, and custody.
- Candice and the six children moved back to Louisiana, despite the Texas filing, and Candice filed a Louisiana divorce action attaching James' Texas petition.
- Candice challenged Texas custody jurisdiction via a special appearance/plea in abatement, arguing UCCJEA home-state was Louisiana.
- Texas court (Panola County) ruled it had subject-matter jurisdiction and ultimately dissolved the marriage, divided property, and adjudicated custody.
- Louisiana appellate court later affirmed its own custody judgment; the Texas court acknowledged competing proceedings and called for inter-state communication but proceeded with Texas jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Texas have home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA? | Candice asserts Louisiana was the home state. | Marsalis argues Texas was the children's home state due to their presence. | Texas had no home-state jurisdiction. |
| Is there jurisdiction under the significant-connection provision? | Candice contends no significant connection to Texas. | Marsalis contends Texas has significant connections due to presence and family ties. | Texas cannot exercise significant-connection jurisdiction. |
| Is Texas the more appropriate forum under 152.201(a)(3)? | Candice argues for Louisiana as more appropriate. | Marsalis argues Texas is appropriate due to the filing and ongoing proceedings there. | Not applicable; all courts appropriate had not declined in favor of Texas. |
| May Texas exercise default jurisdiction under 152.201(a)(4)? | Candice argues Texas has no jurisdiction if no state has proper basis. | Marsalis contends Texas still can exercise jurisdiction when no other state has jurisdiction. | Texas properly exercised default jurisdiction under 152.201(a)(4). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Barnes, 127 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003) (fundamental framework for UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2005) (home-state determination based on six-month presence)
- Brilliant, 86 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2002) (significant-connections analysis in absence of home-state)
- Huffstutlar v. Koons, 789 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990) (six-month residency not purely jurisdictional requirement)