Prizzia v. Prizzia
58 Va. App. 137
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gary and Judit Prizzia were married in Hungary in 1999; their child was born in 2000.
- The family moved to Virginia in 2000 and lived there until December 2002, when they took the child to Hungary for a visit and did not return; wife remained in Hungary with the child.
- Wife filed for divorce in Hungary in February 2003; husband filed for divorce and custody in Henrico County, Virginia, in May 2003, seeking custody and equitable distribution.
- Virginia court initially declined to exercise jurisdiction over divorce/custody after noting Hungary’s jurisdiction, with a plan to hear related issues in Hungary after a final decree.
- Hungarian court granted divorce in 2005 with custody to wife (visitation to husband) and no child support or property division; Virginia later revived proceedings for equitable distribution, child support, and spousal support, deferring divorce/custody to Hungary.
- Final decree in 2010 awarded equitable distribution, child support, and spousal support, but deferred divorce/custody to the Hungarian court; issues included jurisdiction under UCCJEA, retroactivity, and treatment of a defined-contribution retirement plan via QDRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Virginia had initial custody jurisdiction | Husband contends Virginia lacked initial jurisdiction due to Hungary's involvement. | Wife argues Hungarian court should decide; Virginia home state analysis favors jurisdiction here. | Virginia had initial custody jurisdiction under UCCJEA §20-146.12(A)(1). |
| Whether the Virginia court properly declined jurisdiction under UCCJEA | Virginia properly declined; foreign Hungary should decide custody. | Virginia did not properly follow §§20-146.18 or 20-146.19 in declining, so Hungary lacked proper jurisdiction. | Trial court failed to decline—thus Hungary did not have custody jurisdiction; Virginia may decide. |
| Whether the Virginia court had jurisdiction over child support | Court lacked jurisdiction since Hungary–divorce decree controlled matters. | Equitable/parental jurisdiction in Virginia permitted child support; concurrent with custody. | Virginia had jurisdiction to award child support; retroactive award upheld. |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded equitable distribution and gift status | Husband gifted his separate interest; court should treat it as marital property if gifts occurred. | Wife contends no improper gift; evidence supports transmutation to marital property. | Court’s finding of gift was supported; but jurisdictional prerequisites of Code § 20-107.3 were waived by failure to object. |
| Whether the QDRO correctly implemented the final decree’s plan share | Nine percent coverture fraction appropriate for defined-contribution plans. | Coverture fraction inappropriate for defined-contribution plans; must trace contributed funds. | QDRO unlawful as drafted; remand to value marital share under proper method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. Watts, 40 Va.App. 685, 581 S.E.2d 232 (2003) (donative intent and tracing when property is commingled)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 46 Va.App. 652, 621 S.E.2d 147 (2005) (burden of proof for gifts and classification of property)
- Ghameshlouy v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 379, 689 S.E.2d 698 (2010) (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from authority to adjudicate)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 661 S.E.2d 415 (2008) (sufficiency of jurisdictional challenges and preservation)
- Stroop v. Stroop, 10 Va.App. 611, 394 S.E.2d 861 (1990) (statutory jurisdiction boundaries in divorce-related proceedings)
- Turner v. Turner, 47 Va.App. 76, 622 S.E.2d 263 (2005) (QDROs and authority to effectuate final decree terms)
- Morrison v. Bestler, 239 Va. 166, 387 S.E.2d 753 (1990) (preservation of objections and jurisdictional principles)