Spicer v. Spicer
62 So. 3d 798
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Divorced in Louisiana (June 2000) with three children; 1998 custody/support order, later modified in 2008 in Ascension Parish to reflect age of majority for two children; Frey moved with children to Chicago in 2005 and filed to enroll the Illinois judgment (May 27, 2009) seeking to enforce and modify support; Illinois Circuit Court granted increases in child support, non-minor support, and college contributions (Jan. 14, 2010); Frey recorded the Illinois order in Ascension Parish; Spicer responded and a Louisiana declaratory judgment action was filed to contest the Illinois order; ex parte judgment in Spicer’s favor (Feb. 25, 2010) was later vacated; subsequent Louisiana judgment (June 4, 2010) declared Illinois order null and unenforceable; trial court vacated registration).
- Spicer resided in Ascension Parish throughout; Frey domicile shifted to Illinois; UIFSA governs continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and modification of out-of-state orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory judgment procedure was proper to challenge the Illinois order | Frey: procedure premature; mere filing of foreign judgment creates no uncertainty | Spicer: records created uncertainty; declaratory relief appropriate | Declaratory judgment proper; lack of timely dilatory exception waived challenges to subject-matter issues |
| Whether Louisiana retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under UIFSA to modify Louisiana order | Frey: Illinois could modify since filing occurred, seeking more support | Spicer: Illinois lacked jurisdiction; Louisiana retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction | Louisiana retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; Illinois lacked authority to modify under UIFSA |
| Whether Illinois lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify due to lack of written consent | Illinois modifications valid under its statutes | No written consent to divest Louisiana; jurisdiction invalid | Illinois lacked subject matter jurisdiction; modification unenforceable in Louisiana |
| Whether Spicer’s personal appearance conferred subject matter jurisdiction | Appearance implied consent to Illinois proceedings | Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by appearance alone | Personal appearance did not validate subject matter jurisdiction; Illinois order void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Effect of registration of Illinois order in Louisiana | Registration enforces Illinois order | Registration valid only if Illinois order enforceable | Registration vacated and unenforceable; Spicer’s obligation terminated where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, 848 So.2d 9 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2003) (declaratory relief proper where rights uncertain)
- Jurado v. Brashear, 782 So.2d 575 (La. 2001) (UIFSA continuing, exclusive jurisdiction framework; modification rules)
- Bordelon v. Dehnert, 770 So.2d 433 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2000) (UIFSA subject-matter considerations in Louisiana)