Kenda v. Pleskovic
39 A.3d 1249
D.C.2012Background
- Cross-jurisdiction child custody dispute involving DC, Indiana, and London proceedings between Barbara Kenda and Boris Pleskovic
- DC 2002 custody order granted Kenda sole physical custody with joint legal custody; Pleskovic had parenting rights
- Indiana 2005–2006 proceedings address modification of custody and parenting time; London 2006 proceedings followed overlapping timelines
- 2006 Indiana order awarded Pleskovic sole physical custody and attorney’s fees to him; Kenda appealed unsuccessfully in Indiana
- DC 2007–2009 post-Indiana litigation addressed reaffirmation of 2002 order and request for fees; DC Superior Court denied Kenda’s fee request and declined to void Indiana order
- DC Court of Appeals holds Kenda judicially estopped from challenging Indiana jurisdiction; also affirms denial of attorneys’ fees as not an abuse of discretion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana lacked jurisdiction to modify custody | Kenda argues DC had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; Indiana lacked authority | Pleskovic contends Indiana had jurisdiction under UCCJEA/Indiana law; waived objection | Indiana jurisdiction upheld; Kenda judicially estopped from challenging |
| Whether Kenda is judicially estopped from challenging Indiana jurisdiction | Kenda asserts Indiana lacked jurisdiction | Both parties engaged in Indiana proceedings and London resolution acknowledging Indiana jurisdiction | Kenda judicially estopped from arguing lack of Indiana jurisdiction |
| Whether the DC Superior Court abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees | Ms. Kenda seeks fees due to lengthy custody battle | Court considered timing, fees, and best interests, found no basis to shift fees to Pleskovic | No abuse of discretion; fees denial affirmed |
| Whether UCCJEA home-state/continuing-jurisdiction framework applied to keep DC order | DC order held to be exclusive, continuing jurisdiction | Indiana proceedings invoked home-state jurisdiction and resolved matters | Indiana order authoritative; jurisdiction applied consistently |
| Whether the London resolution and subsequent agreements affected jurisdiction | London court recognized Indiana’s ongoing jurisdiction | London acted to maintain welfare matters in Indiana | London agreement recognized Indiana jurisdiction; not reversed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Kenda, 873 N.E.2d 729 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (Indiana home-state determination and London resolution emphasizing Indiana jurisdiction)
- Kenda v. Pleskovic, 878 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. 2007) (Indiana upholds custody and fees; transfer denied)
- Mason v. United States, 956 A.2d 63 (D.C.2008) (judicial estoppel to protect integrity of the judicial process)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S.2001) (two-factor test for judicial estoppel: inconsistency and unfair advantage/detriment)
- Upson v. Wallace, 3 A.3d 1148 (D.C.2010) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Fritz v. Grise, 797 A.2d 710 (D.C.2002) (no abuse of discretion in denying attorney’s fees)