Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen
127 So. 3d 738
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Michigan entered a child-support order in 2007; mother (Karen Pulkkinen) later moved with the children to Florida and sought to domesticate and modify the Michigan order in Florida (2010).
- Father (Jyrki Pulkkinen) lives in California; he agreed to personal jurisdiction in Florida only for enforcement (he requested registration under UIFSA for enforcement, not modification).
- Florida trial court registered the Michigan order under the UIFSA and the mother filed to modify; the father moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Florida’s UIFSA § 88.6111(1).
- Mother argued the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, authorized Florida to modify because Michigan lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
- Trial court sided with mother; father sought a writ of prohibition to stop Florida from exercising modification jurisdiction.
- Florida Supreme Court held that Florida’s UIFSA § 88.6111(1) precludes modification here and is not preempted by the FFCCSOA, so the modification action must be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FFCCSOA preempts Florida UIFSA § 88.6111(1) so Florida may modify a Michigan order after Michigan loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when the movant (mother) is a Florida resident and the respondent (father) is nonresident | Pulkkinen: FFCCSOA authorizes modification in another state once issuing state loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; federal law supersedes conflicting state UIFSA limits | Pulkkinen (father): Florida UIFSA bars modification where the petitioner is a Florida resident (nonresident requirement); FFCCSOA does not compel displacement because it requires modification only in a State with jurisdiction over the non‑movant for purpose of modification | Court: No preemption; § 88.6111(1) stands. FFCCSOA requires both personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction; subject‑matter limits are set by state UIFSA, so Florida must decline to modify |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Brown, 43 So.3d 673 (Fla. 2010) (writ of prohibition proper to restrain a court exceeding jurisdiction)
- State v. Fleet, 679 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (writ issued to preclude modification where court lacked jurisdiction)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (Congressional intent is touchstone in preemption analysis)
- English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) (three categories of federal preemption explained)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (state law is preempted where it stands as obstacle to federal objectives)
- Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So.2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (noting UIFSA adoption; discussing interplay of UIFSA and FFCCSOA)
- Draper v. Burke, 881 N.E.2d 122 (Mass. 2008) (contrasting view that FFCCSOA preempts UIFSA nonresident requirement)
- LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001) (holding FFCCSOA does not preempt UIFSA’s modification‑jurisdiction limits)