Studer v. Studer
131 A.3d 240
Conn.2016Background
- Marriage dissolved in Florida (2002); Florida judgment required child support until age 18 (or 19 if still in HS); judgment noted the child’s autism.
- Parties and child later moved to Connecticut; defendant registered the Florida judgment in CT and CT courts modified the support amount several times (2003, 2007, 2008).
- In 2010 plaintiff obtained a CT order (applying Florida law) extending support until the child’s high school graduation because of autism.
- Plaintiff filed a 2013 motion seeking indefinite post‑majority support after graduation; trial court held § 46b‑213q(d) of Connecticut’s UIFSA governs and applied Florida law, ordering indefinite support.
- Defendant appealed, arguing CT law should govern duration because CT had modified the order and had continuing exclusive jurisdiction; Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state law governs duration of child support after interstate modifications? | Florida law governs because Florida issued the initial controlling order. | Connecticut law governs because CT registered/modified the Florida judgment and assumed continuing exclusive jurisdiction. | The statute § 46b‑213q(d) gives the state that issued the initial controlling order (Florida) authority over duration; Florida law controls. |
| Does a CT modification of amount make CT the initial controlling order for duration? | N/A (plaintiff relied on initial‑order rule). | CT’s earlier modification(s) mean CT issued the controlling order, so CT law should apply. | Rejects defendant: ‘‘initial’’ means the first state to issue a child support order; subsequent modifications do not change which state controls duration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. App. 2006) (discusses effect of uniform‑act amendment on duration control)
- Wills v. Wills, 745 N.W.2d 924 (Neb. App. 2008) (holding originating‑state law governs duration)
- In re Schneider, 268 P.3d 215 (Wash. 2011) (Washington Supreme Court: initial state controls duration; reversal where WA applied its own law over Nebraska)
- In re Scott, 999 A.2d 229 (N.H. 2010) (New Hampshire: first‑state rule governs duration despite later modifications)
- In re Martinez, 450 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App. 2014) (Texas court: duration governed by originating state's law; cannot impose new obligation inconsistent with origination state)