Lilly v. Lilly
250 P.3d 994
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Aaron Lilly, active-duty Marine stationed in California, claims Utah domicile; Korilee Lilly and Child reside in Utah since 2005; California divorce decree (2006) required child support of $1000/month; Utah petition to modify filed (Nov 2007) arguing Utah resident status and UIFSA jurisdiction; district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on physical residence in California; California meanwhile modified the order inSept 2008; this appeal challenges Utah vs California jurisdiction under UIFSA and requests full faith and credit analysis; remand sought for domicile determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state has UIFSA jurisdiction to modify the order | Lilly domiciliary of Utah supports Utah jurisdiction | Lilly resides in California; California has jurisdiction | Remanded to determine domicile; UIFSA governs domiciliary basis for jurisdiction |
| Whether California's modification is entitled to full faith and credit | FFCCSOA/Full Faith Clause require same jurisdiction basis | Credit depends on California retaining jurisdiction if domiciliary status supports it | Remand to resolve domicile first; full faith and credit to be addressed accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Case v. Case, 103 P.3d 171 (Utah 2004) (UIFSA aims for a single valid support order; continuing exclusive jurisdiction concept)
- In re Marriage of Amezquita, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 887 (Cal. App. 2002) (California interprets UIFSA to base modification on domicile rather than physical residence)
- Keene v. Bonser, 234 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2010) (Statutory interpretation; purpose and plain language guidance)
- In re Estate of Jones, 858 P.2d 983 (Utah 1993) (Full Faith and Credit analysis requires validity/finality and jurisdiction)