in the Interest of E.H., A.H., and E.H., Children
450 S.W.3d 166
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Sara obtained an Israeli child-support judgment against Shlomo in 1993; Israel later authorized Sara to pursue arrearages (roughly $168,129 as of 2012).
- Shlomo moved from Israel to the U.S. in 1992 and lived in Galveston, Texas, by September 1992; one son later lived with him in Galveston and the Texas OAG registered the Israeli order in Galveston County in 2011 under UIFSA.
- The Attorney General filed to register and confirm the foreign support order; Shlomo contested, asserting he was never served in Israel and thus was denied due process.
- Israeli Rule 495 requires service by registered mail with proof of delivery attached to the court file; the Israeli file lacked an attached delivery confirmation although a separate untranslated postal card (exhibit B2) was offered later.
- The trial court found (supported by 53 findings) that Shlomo was not served, received no notice, and was denied due process; the court vacated the registration. The Texas appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OAG) | Defendant's Argument (Hamo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIFSA requires Texas to give full faith and credit to an Israeli support order and thus bar collateral attack on personal jurisdiction | UIFSA treats qualifying foreign countries as “states,” so full faith-and-credit principles should apply and preclude Shlomo’s collateral attack where the Israeli record purportedly shows service | Shlomo says UIFSA expressly allows a contest based on lack of personal jurisdiction and the Israeli record does not conclusively prove service; collateral attack is permitted where jurisdictional defects or lack of notice exist | Court: Even if UIFSA could incorporate full faith and credit, the Israeli record did not conclusively show proper service, so the trial court permissibly considered Shlomo’s challenge; issue overruled. |
| Whether Texas courts must defer to the Israeli tribunal under comity | Comity requires respect for foreign judicial determinations; Israeli proceedings afforded sufficient notice under Mullane standard | Shlomo contends comity does not require enforcement where due process (reasonable notice) was lacking and Israeli file lacks required proof of service | Court: Comity does not require recognition where judgment was obtained without due process; trial court properly refused registration. |
| Whether Shlomo’s denial of service is insufficient (bare denial) to defeat registration | The Attorney General: presumption of regularity and documentary evidence (Israeli order authorizing mail service, hearing transcript, certificate/postal card) outweigh Shlomo’s testimony | Shlomo: presented testimony and documentary gaps (no proof of delivery in Israeli file; postal card addressed to different name/address; illegible signature) sufficient to rebut presumption | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; record supports findings that Shlomo was not served and was denied due process; registration properly vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1963) (issue preclusion for jurisdiction when matter was fully and fairly litigated in rendering forum)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1946) (comity cannot validate judgments obtained without due process)
- Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1945) (limits on collateral attack and presumption of court of general jurisdiction)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (collateral attack available only for defects rising to due-process deprivation)
- In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012) (service of process by publication held invalid and implicated constitutional due process)