Patricia H. Parks Monteith v. George H. Monteith Jr.
2021 ME 40
| Me. | 2021Background
- Patricia and George were divorced in Maine in 2002; the Maine court entered a child support order for their four children.
- Patricia and the children moved to Maryland; George remained a Maine resident.
- In ~2013 Patricia obtained a Maryland modification of the 2002 Maine order (increasing support for three remaining minors); neither party filed the UIFSA-required consents in Maine authorizing Maryland to assume modification jurisdiction.
- George appeared and litigated in Maryland but did not pay the additional amounts imposed by the Maryland order; he continued to pay under the original Maine order.
- In 2019 Patricia sought registration and enforcement of the Maryland order in Maine; the Maine District Court held the Maryland court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (because consents were not filed in Maine), found the Maryland order void ab initio, and declined registration.
- Patricia appealed, arguing the consent requirement is procedural (waivable/substantially complied with) and does not prevent enforcement in Maine; the court affirmed the District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIFSA's requirement that parties "file consents in a record in the issuing tribunal" to divest the issuing court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction is jurisdictional or procedural | Patricia: failure to file consents is procedural; substantial compliance and opposing party's participation in Maryland waived any objection | George: failure to file consents deprived Maryland of subject matter jurisdiction; lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived | The consent requirement is jurisdictional; absent the required filing in the issuing state, the out-of-state modification is void and not registerable/enforceable in Maine |
| Whether George waived challenge to Maryland's jurisdiction by participating there and whether "substantial compliance" cures the lack of consent filing | Patricia: George participated in Maryland and thus waived defects; substantial compliance should validate the order | George: Participation may waive personal jurisdiction objections but cannot waive lack of subject matter jurisdiction; substantial compliance cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction | Participation did not waive challenge to subject matter jurisdiction; substantial compliance cannot supply subject matter jurisdiction; collateral attack permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawley v. Murphy, 736 A.2d 268 (Me. 1999) (registered support orders enforceable only if issuing court had jurisdiction)
- In re Ball, 123 A.3d 719 (N.H. 2015) (UIFSA one-order system and interpretation of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction)
- Cohen v. Cohen, 25 N.E.3d 840 (Mass. 2015) (modified child support order void where issuing state lacked jurisdiction)
- In re Child of Nicholas P., 218 A.3d 247 (Me. 2019) (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from claim-processing rules)
- Penkul v. Matarazzo, 983 A.2d 375 (Me. 2009) (issuing tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction absent statutory conditions for transfer)