State v. Lavallie
2015 ND 74
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Child born in 2010; mother Kesha Lavallie obtained South Dakota child‑support benefits and a South Dakota support order (July 18, 2011).
- South Dakota registered the support order in North Dakota (filed Nov. 7, 2012) for enforcement; North Dakota tribunal notified Dustin Lavallie and gave 20 days to request a hearing contesting validity.
- Lavallie did not timely contest; order was confirmed by operation of law under UIFSA (N.D.C.C. ch. 14‑12.2).
- In May 2014 Lavallie (self‑represented and incarcerated) moved to dismiss the registration, asserting lack of South Dakota personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction; the district court denied the motion as frivolous.
- Lavallie moved to reconsider, arguing the court overlooked his reply; the district court denied reconsideration and he appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Lavallie challenge the issuing court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction after registration? | State: UIFSA controls; registered orders are presumptively valid and subject‑matter jurisdiction of issuing court appropriate. | Lavallie: he challenges subject‑matter jurisdiction under federal Indian law (25 U.S.C. § 1322) because parties/residence allegedly on Turtle Mountain Reservation. | Held: Lavallie actually raises personal‑jurisdiction issues; subject‑matter jurisdiction existed (South Dakota had authority), so challenge fails. |
| Was Lavallie’s challenge to personal jurisdiction timely under UIFSA? | State: UIFSA requires contest within 20 days; failure waives personal‑jurisdiction defense. | Lavallie: late filing and reconsideration should allow review of jurisdictional defects. | Held: Personal‑jurisdiction challenge was waived for failure to timely contest under N.D.C.C. § 14‑12.2‑40; district court did not abuse discretion in denying reconsideration. |
| Do state courts lack jurisdiction over civil matters involving Indians on reservation? | Lavallie: state courts cannot hear cases involving Indians arising in Indian country absent tribal consent. | State: Precedent recognizes limits, but concurrent jurisdiction exists for support obligations where parentage not at issue and defendant not residing on reservation when action commenced. | Held: Rolette County precedent controls; South Dakota had subject‑matter jurisdiction here (claim arose in SD; child and mother received SD benefits). |
Key Cases Cited
- Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, LLC, 795 N.W.2d 327 (N.D. 2011) (standard of review for reconsideration is abuse of discretion)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 527 N.W.2d 663 (N.D. 1995) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Smith v. Hall, 707 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 2005) (UIFSA registration procedure; 20‑day rule and waiver of personal‑jurisdiction defenses)
- Rolette Cnty. Soc. Serv. Bd. v. B.E., 697 N.W.2d 333 (N.D. 2005) (concurrent jurisdiction for support obligations involving enrolled Indians in specified circumstances)
- Trottier v. Bird, 635 N.W.2d 157 (N.D. 2001) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)