Marsalis v. Marsalis
52 So. 3d 295
| La. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Marsalis filed a September 10, 2009 petition in St. Landry Parish under UCCJEA seeking custody, divorce, child support, and related relief for six children in Louisiana.
- Children resided in Arnaudville, Louisiana; Marsalis allegedly domiciled in Texas though previously Louisiana; Marsalis had filed Texas custody proceedings.
- Louisiana trial court granted joint custody, designated Marsalis as domiciliary parent, and awarded visitation, child and spousal support, and use of the marital home.
- Marsalis did not appear at the December 7, 2009 hearing; the court found Louisiana had home-state jurisdiction and no other state had jurisdiction.
- Marsalis appealed, arguing the court should have stayed and communicated with Texas under 13:1818 due to ongoing Texas proceedings.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding Louisiana had initial jurisdiction and no requirement to stay absent clear Texas jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by not staying and communicating with Texas under 13:1818? | Marsalis contends Texas had jurisdiction and Louisiana should stay and confer. | Marsalis did not prove Texas had jurisdiction; Louisiana was initial forum. | No error; Louisiana had jurisdiction; no stay required. |
| Whether Louisiana had initial custody jurisdiction under 13:1813(A)(2) or (A)(1)? | Texas or another state may have jurisdiction; home state not clearly Louisiana. | Louisiana had significant connections and substantial evidence; home state jurisdiction exists. | Louisiana had initial jurisdiction under 13:1813(A)(2). |
| Whether Texas could have significant-connection jurisdiction under 13:1813(A)(2)? | Texas may have significant connections to the children and care. | Record shows no Texas significant-connection basis; no evidence presented. | Record supports no Texas significant-connection jurisdiction; remand not required per majority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burr v. Burr, 711 So.2d 303 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1998) (home-state analysis and six-month rule for custody)
- Layton v. Newell, 845 So.2d 1035 (La. 2003) (jurisdictional determination where another state has commenced proceedings)
- Ehsani v. Ehsani, 519 So.2d 288 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1988) (jurisdictional interplay under UCCJEA in parallel proceedings)
- Wachter v. Wachter, 439 So.2d 1260 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1983) (considerations of home state and concurrent jurisdictions)
- DeLee v. Koss, 430 So.2d 196 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1983) (early UCCJEA guidance on jurisdictional grounds)
- Anton v. Anton, 694 So.2d 1217 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1997) (procedural considerations in UCCJEA proceedings)
- Janik v. Janik, 542 So.2d 615 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1989) (multiple-state custody considerations under UCCJEA)
- Counts v. Bracken, 494 So.2d 1275 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986) (subject-matter jurisdiction in inter-state custody matters)
- Revere v. Revere, 389 So.2d 1277 (La. 1980) (uniform custody philosophy; avoid jurisdictional competition)