938 N.E.2d 219
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Divorce finalized in Clark County, Indiana; Mother gains custody and Father ordered to pay $45 weekly child support.
- Father moves to Illinois; Illinois UIFSA transmittal filed in 2000 to enforce and modify; Illinois later modified support.
- October 2002 Agreed Order in Clark Superior Court transferred continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement and modification to Illinois; signed November 2002.
- March 2004 Father seeks to reassume Indiana jurisdiction over parenting and child support; Mother objects to transfer of support jurisdiction.
- 2004–2009 proceedings include an ex parte pre-hearing conference in chambers attended by Father's counsel and a prosecutor, with Mother barred; hearing lasts 47 minutes with no live witnesses.
- July 2010 trial court holds Illinois lacked jurisdiction and Indiana retained original jurisdiction; appellate reversal remands for assignment to a different judicial officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Illinois properly have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the support order? | Lombardi contends jurisdiction never properly transferred; Illinois proceedings void. | Van Deusen contends consent and UIFSA transfer gave Illinois jurisdiction to modify. | Illinois properly assumed jurisdiction; Indiana relinquished. |
| Was the DuPage modification valid if Illinois had jurisdiction? | Lombardi argues Illinois lacked jurisdiction, so modification void. | Van Deusen maintains Illinois had jurisdiction after consent and proper notice. | DuPage modification valid; not retroactively altered. |
| Did the ex parte pre-hearing conference violate due process? | Mother was barred from in-chambers conference where adverse evidence was discussed. | State contends harmless error since merits favored Lombardi anyway. | Ex parte conference troubling but did not require reversal on this basis; remand for reassignment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Basileh v. Alghusain, 912 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2009) (nonresidency and consent methods independently sustain continuing, exclusive jurisdiction)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.2001) (de novo review for continuing, exclusive jurisdiction questions)
- B.P. Amoco Corp. v. Szymanski, 808 N.E.2d 683 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (statutory interpretation de novo)
- Stone v. Davis, 148 Cal.App.4th 596 (Cal.App.2007) (UIFSA-based modification authority with proper notice and consent)
- Worman Enters., Inc. v. Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 805 N.E.2d 369 (Ind.2004) (due process and ex parte communications concerns)