Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham
2010 Minn. App. LEXIS 171
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Marriage dissolved in Goodhue County in 1998; Denise Montgomery and Robert Wareham shared custody of three children, with Montgomery as sole physical custodian and Wareham paying support.
- Wareham was overseas in the U.S. military; residence cited as Washington state; Montgomery moved with children to Kentucky while IV-D support continued in Minnesota.
- In January 2010 Montgomery moved for modification of the Minnesota child-support order based on increased respondent income and decreased movant income, arguing changed circumstances.
- At the hearing, Wareham attended by telephone from Germany; the CSM questioned Minnesota’s continuing, exclusive jurisdiction since none resided in Minnesota.
- CSM dismissed the motion, concluding Minnesota lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under UIFSA § 518C.205(a)(1); Montgomery appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minnesota retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order when none of the parties or the child reside in Minnesota. | Montgomery argues § 518C.205(a)(2) preserves jurisdiction absent consents. | Wareham contends § 518C.205(a)(1) applies; no residency in Minnesota ends jurisdiction, and no consents filed. | Minnesota retains jurisdiction under § 518C.205(a)(2); CSM erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porro v. Porro, 675 N.W.2d 82 (Minn.App.2004) (discusses jurisdiction to modify under UIFSA)
- Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707 (Minn.App.2000) (standard for reviewing CSM decisions on jurisdiction)
- Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn.App.1999) (statutory interpretation guidance for UIFSA provisions)
- In re Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn.App.2008) (UIFSA jurisdiction modification/enforcement context)
- Behr v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 638 N.W.2d 469 (Minn.App.2002) (amendment presumed to reflect change in law)
- Jur ado v. Brashear, 782 So.2d 575 (La.2001) (states lack of jurisdiction where all parties leave issuing state)
- Gibson v. Gibson, 211 S.W.3d 601 (Ky.App.2006) (issuing court lacks jurisdiction absent residency and consent)