248 P.3d 290
Mont.2010Background
- Carl and Heather married in 1998; they have a child ANM who lived with them in Montana and elsewhere over the years.
- Heather removed ANM from Montana in April 2006 and did not return; Heather later filed a dissolution action in Texas (May 2006).
- Carl filed a Montana dissolution petition in October 2006; service on Heather completed in Texas by March 2009.
- Montana court granted default dissolution in April 2009, including a Parenting Plan, before Heather appeared on the docket to contest jurisdiction.
- Heather moved to set aside the default and dissolution; the court later held Texas had jurisdiction over dissolution and addressing custody, but Montana remained the home state for custody.
- The Montana Supreme Court remanded to resolve jurisdictional questions under the UCCJEA and the inconvenient forum factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by declining jurisdiction over dissolution | Myrland contends both states had proper domicile; first-filed petition should govern | Court should determine dissolution in Texas since Heather filed first | No abuse; Texas could address dissolution while Montana addressed custody. |
| Whether the district court correctly set aside the Parenting Plan for lack of jurisdiction | Montana home state jurisdiction over custody; parenting plan can accompany dissolution if proper | Lack of subject matter jurisdiction to address custody | Remanded; Montana was home state; correct application of jurisdictional rules required. |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in declining to exercise custody jurisdiction | Montana home state; UCCJEA factors favor Montana absence of inconvenient forum | Montana not convenient; Texas more appropriate forum given circumstances | Remand to address §40-7-108 factors; determine convenient forum or stay for proceedings in another state. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Ct., 331 Mont. 40 (2006 MT 21) (home-state/initial custody jurisdiction per UCCJEA; six-month lookback for home state)
- Riley v. Amundsen (In re Custody of N.G.H.), 92 P.3d 1215 (2004 MT 162) (remand when inconvenient-forum factors not considered)
- Kulstad v. Maniaci, 220 P.3d 595 (2009 MT 326) (standard of review on jurisdiction and dismissal decisions)
- In re Marriage of Stoneman, 64 P.3d 997 (2003 MT 25) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jurisdictional decisions)