Chalmers v. BurroughChalmers v. Burrough
- Reporters:
- ,
1.
The Kansas Legislature—and other state legislatures—enacted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to establish a uniform, nationwide procedure for issuing, modifying, and enforcing child and spousal support.
2.
UIFSA was adopted to prevent the issuance of multiple support orders by different jurisdictions as families move between and interact with different states. To prevent the issuance of overlapping or conflicting orders, UIFSA establishes a one-order system whereby all states that have adopted UIFSA recognize and enforce the same obligation consistently. The goal of this uniform structure is to ensure that only one valid support order may be effective at one time.
3.
UIFSA adopts the principle of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to establish and modify child support. Under this framework, Kansas courts may enforce out-of-state orders concerning child support at any time, as long as they have personal jurisdiction over the parties and the out-of-state order is properly registered according to the procedures set forth in the Act. But a Kansas court does not have jurisdiction to establish
4.
5.
6.
Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case is a question of law appellate courts review de novo.
7.
UIFSA‘s limitations on affirmative defenses only apply when someone is contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order. Those limitations do not apply when someone is challenging the effectiveness of the underlying registration.
8.
Questions of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including by the court sua sponte. Unlike personal jurisdiction, which concerns the court‘s authority over the parties and may therefore be waived, subject-matter jurisdiction goes to the power of a court to hear and decide a case. Parties cannot bestow the power to hear a case
9.
Under UIFSA‘s procedural requirements, a Kansas court has no authority to modify child-support obligations in an out-of-state case until the out-of-state order is properly registered under
10.
Though strict compliance is not necessary, a party still must substantially comply with UIFSA‘s registration requirements before a Kansas court can take any action concerning an out-of-state child-support order.
11.
The controlling out-of-state order is the focus of a modification or enforcement proceeding under UIFSA. Without a copy of that order, the district court cannot know its contours. A party who fails to attach the out-of-state order to his or her petition to register that order has not substantially complied with UIFSA‘s registration requirements.
In this case, Almario Chalmers attempted to register and then modify a Florida child-support order in Kansas (where his daughter and her mother live). The Kansas district court initially confirmed registration of the Florida order and modified Chalmers’ child-support obligation. But it later set aside both orders and dismissed the case because Chalmers did not substantially comply with UIFSA‘s registration requirements. We affirm that dismissal, as the failure to properly register the order under UIFSA prevented the Kansas court from ever acquiring jurisdiction to hear the case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A Florida district court ordered Chalmers to pay Brittany Burrough child support in 2015 for the care of their daughter. The amount of child support was based on Chalmers’ income while he played basketball for the Miami Heat of the National Basketball Association. Chalmers retired from the NBA in November 2018 and moved out of Florida. Burrough and the child are Kansas residents.
The petition to register the Florida order included its date and case name. It stated Chalmers was current with his child-support obligations and that there was no known arrearage. The petition also indicated that “Two (2) copies of the Child Support Order sought to be registered [were] included with this Petition, one of which is certified.” But no copies of the Florida support order were actually attached to the petition.
Chalmers provided copies of this petition to Burrough, along with a “Notice of Registration of Support Order Under [UIFSA].” This notice included a paragraph titled “Automatic Confirmation,” stating, “If you do not contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order within twenty (20) days, this order will automatically be confirmed by operation of law.” Burrough did not contest the petition within 20 days of receiving these materials.
On the 20th day, Chalmers requested—and the district court entered—a journal entry registering the Florida order in Kansas. The journal entry stated, “By operation of the law, this Court accepts registration of the attached Order of the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County Judicial Circuit, Case Number 10-19606 . . . under the provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).” (Emphasis added.) One week later, the district court temporarily modified Chalmers’ support obligation “by agreement of the parties.” The court ordered a hearing on Chalmers’ request for permanent modification of his child-support obligation after the Thanksgiving holiday and noted that Burrough had failed to contest the validity of the Florida child-support order within the 20-day window.
The next day, Burrough filed a “Motion to Dismiss Case and Void Judgment Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” Burrough argued the Florida support order had never been registered because Chalmers did not comply with UIFSA‘s procedural requirements; since Chalmers had not attached the Florida order, the district court‘s confirmation and modification orders were void. She asked the court to “[d]ismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because no Florida child support order(s) are registered.” Burrough also alleged that Chalmers was still a resident of Florida. Chalmers filed a motion in opposition to Burrough‘s motion, claiming she was barred from raising the matter under
The district court dismissed Chalmers’ registration of the Florida order as defective (because the out-of-state order had not been attached) and vacated its modification of his support obligation. In so ruling, the court rejected Chalmers’ arguments that he had substantially complied with UIFSA‘s registration requirements and that the omission of the order was merely a clerical error. It explained:
“This argument misses the real issue before the court, whether Chalmers has substantially complied with the requirements for presenting the orders of another state‘s court to the Kansas Court for enforcement. The Florida Child Support Order, itself, certified by the court of the issuing state, is the actual subject of the registration. The presence of the certified document is fundamental to such registration. Failure to include the order is more than a mere clerical error or excusable neglect, it is a critical element of the registration process.”
DISCUSSION
Before the enactment of UIFSA, Kansas courts had jurisdiction “to establish, vacate, or modify” child-support orders “even when that obligation had been created in another jurisdiction.” Gentzel v. Williams, 25 Kan. App. 2d 552, 556, 965 P.2d 855 (1998). The result of this expansive authority was “often multiple, inconsistent obligations existing for the same” parent, as well as “injustice in that [parents] could void their responsibility by moving to another jurisdiction and having their support obligations modified or even vacated.” 25 Kan. App. 2d at 556. See, e.g., Burnworth v. Hughes, 234 Kan. 69, 76-77, 670 P.2d 917 (1983) (Kansas court could not enforce California child-support order but had jurisdiction to enter a different, albeit conflicting, order); Dipman v. Dipman, 6 Kan. App. 2d 844, 635 P.2d 1279 (1981) (reversing dismissal of action to modify child-support obligation included in a Georgia divorce decree).
The Kansas Legislature—along with legislatures in all other states—enacted UIFSA to address these concerns. Now codified in Kansas at
At its core, UIFSA was adopted to prevent the issuance of multiple support orders by different jurisdictions as families move between and interact with different states. To prevent the issuance of overlapping or conflicting orders, UIFSA establishes a “one-order” system whereby all states that have adopted UIFSA recognize and enforce the same obligation consistently. Gentzel, 25 Kan. App. 2d at 556-57. The goal of this uniform structure is to ensure that “‘only one valid support order may be effective at any
To achieve this aim, UIFSA adopts the principle “‘of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to establish and modify‘” child support. Gentzel, 25 Kan. App. 2d at 556 (quoting Sampson and Kurtz, UIFSA: An Interstate Support Act for the 21st Century, 27 Fam. Law Qtrly. 85, 88 [1993]); see
“‘is the only body entitled to modify [its child-support order] so long as it retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the Act. Another state, while required by UIFSA to enforce the existing decree, has no power under that Act to modify the original decree or enter a support order at a different level.‘” Gentzel, 25 Kan. App. 2d at 556 (quoting 27 Fam. Law Qtrly. at 88).
Under this framework, Kansas courts may enforce out-of-state orders concerning child support at any time, as long as they have personal jurisdiction over the parties and the out-of-state order is properly registered according to the procedures set forth in UIFSA. See
A Kansas court does not have jurisdiction to establish or modify child-support obligations in a case originally filed in another state (like Florida) unless continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that case is first transferred to Kansas. See
Most importantly for purposes of our discussion, UIFSA only authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction over a case and modify an out-of-state order if that order is first “registered in this state.”
“[A] support order or income withholding order . . . may be registered in this state by sending the following records to the appropriate tribunal in this state:
“(1) A letter of transmittal to the tribunal requesting registration and enforcement;
“(2) two copies, including one certified copy, of the order to be registered, including any modification of the order;
“(3) a sworn statement by the person requesting registration or a certified statement by the custodian of the records showing the amount of any arrearage;
“(4) the name of the obligor and, if known:
(A) The obligor‘s address and social security number;
(B) the name and address of the obligor‘s employer and any other source of income of the obligor; and
(C) a description and the location of property of the obligor in this state not exempt from execution; and
“(5) except as otherwise provided in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,312 , and amendments thereto, the name and address of the obligee and, if applicable, the person to whom support payments are to be remitted.”
When these registration requirements are met, the Kansas court “shall cause the order to be filed as an order of a tribunal of another state.”
The requesting party must notify other interested parties and agencies of the completed registration. Anyone wishing “to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order” must request a hearing within 20 days. See
Both parties in this case agree that Chalmers did not attach “two copies, including one certified copy,” of the Florida order to his petition for registration. The district court found Chalmers’ failure to attach these orders—and thus his failure to comply with
Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case—including Chalmers’ request for modification of the Florida order and his subsequent motion to amend his original registration—is a question of law appellate courts review de novo. Dia v. Oakley, 42 Kan. App. 2d 847, 849, 217 P.3d 1010 (2009), rev. denied 290 Kan. 1092 (2010). As the following discussion explains, we affirm the district court‘s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in light of the unique jurisdictional constraints of UIFSA.
1. Challenges to a court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including after the 20-day window in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,605 and 23-36,606 .
Chalmers argues Burrough‘s failure to contest the registration of the Florida child-support order within the 20-day window in
“UIFSA provides only a limited opportunity to challenge an [out-of-state] order” once that order has been registered. Dia, 42 Kan. App. 2d at 852. In particular,
“(1) The issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party;
“(2) the order was obtained by fraud;
“(3) the order has been vacated, suspended or modified by a later order;
“(4) the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal;
“(5) there is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought;
“(6) full or partial payment has been made;
“(7) the statute of limitations under
K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,604 , and amendments thereto, precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or“(8) the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.”
K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,607(a) .
A party challenging the registered order has the burden to prove one or more of these defenses applies.
Kansas appellate courts have considered these provisions once before. In Dia, a child‘s father attempted to contest the validity of a registered, out-of-state support order as void under
“UIFSA provides that the issuing state has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over that order with limited exceptions. UIFSA specifically allows a challenge to the validity of the order in the responding state, but only before confirmation of the order‘s initial registration. After confirmation, the defenses listed in UIFSA—specifically including lack of jurisdiction—may no longer be raised in the responding state.” 42 Kan. App. 2d at 853.
Chalmers argues the same result should follow here, as the issue of the defective registration arose more than 20 days after Burrough received notice of its filing. But this case is distinguishable from Dia in at least two important respects.
First, Burrough did not challenge “the validity or enforcement” of the Florida order. Instead, she asserted that Chalmers had not properly registered the order, and the failure to do so deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction over Chalmers’
Second, questions of subject-matter jurisdiction—like that voiced by Burrough here—may be raised at any time, including by the court sua sponte. See Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 395, 204, P.3d 562 (2009). Unlike personal jurisdiction, which concerns the court‘s authority over the parties and may therefore be waived, subject-matter jurisdiction goes to the power of a court to hear and decide a case. Gentzel, 25 Kan. App. 2d at 559-60. Parties cannot bestow the power to hear a case on a court when that authority does not otherwise exist, so subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel. Kingsley, 288 Kan. at 395.
Under UIFSA‘s procedural requirements, a Kansas court has no authority to modify child-support obligations in an out-of-state case until the out-of-state order is properly registered under
In light of this discussion, the district court did not err when it found it could only hear the case if Chalmers’ petition complied with
2. Chalmers’ petition did not substantially comply with K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,602 .
As the previous discussion indicates, in order to enforce or modify an out-of-state child-support order in Kansas, a person must register that order using the procedure in
As a preliminary matter, we—like other courts across the country—recognize that requiring strict compliance with UIFSA‘s registration procedures could lead to unnecessarily harsh results. See Ex Parte Reynolds, 209 So. 3d 1122, 1126-28 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (strict compliance with registration procedures of UIFSA is not required to confer subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce or modify a foreign child-support judgment);
As the Court of Appeals of Washington observed, UIFSA‘s “procedural safeguards are designed to minimize the risk of prejudice to the obligor [and do] not support a policy that punishes support recipients for minor, harmless procedural errors in registration.” 126 Wash. App. at 497-98. At the same time, UIFSA‘s registration procedure was enacted for a reason, and we must interpret and apply that Act as written. See Spencer Gifts, 304 Kan. 755, Syl. ¶ 3. Thus, though strict compliance is not necessary, a party still must substantially comply with UIFSA‘s registration requirements before a Kansas court can take any action concerning an out-of-state child-support order.
Chalmers argues his case is analogous to Reynolds, where an Alabama appeals court found a mother had substantially complied with UIFSA. In Reynolds, the mother electronically filed the copies of the out-of-state judgment, but the certification was on the back of the document and did not appear in the electronic filing system. The court found she had substantially complied with the Act‘s registration requirements and allowed her to cure the technical deficiencies in the filing. Ex Parte Reynolds, 209 So. 3d at 1128. Chalmers contends the situation in Reynolds is similar to his own, but he glosses
Other cases from across the country that have considered defects in the registration process similarly provide little support for Chalmers’ position. In Owen, the mother filed her registration petition—which included all necessary documents—with the court when she was supposed to file them with the Department of Social and Health Services. Her registration was forwarded to the correct location by the court, fixing the mistake. The Washington Court of Appeals concluded she had substantially complied with UIFSA. In re Marriage of Owen & Phillips, 126 Wash. App. at 495-98. In Nelson, the mother again included all required documents when she sought to register an out-of-state child-support order, but she did not include the father‘s social security number and certain employment information. The Nelson court found that the out-of-state order itself had been appropriately filed and the missing data could be corrected. 827 So. 2d at 45-46. Chalmers did not merely file his petition in the wrong office or fail to include minor details; he wholly failed to attach the order he sought to register.
The district court concluded the attachment of the Florida order to be registered was a critical component of UIFSA‘s registration requirements. We agree. UIFSA states that an out-of-state order “is registered when the order is filed in the registering tribunal of this state.” (Emphasis added.)
In his final argument on appeal, Chalmers asserts that dismissal was not required, as the district court could have permitted him to amend his petition to attach the Florida order. It is true that appellate courts have often indicated permission to amend a pleading should be freely granted if the amendment is timely filed and notice given to all parties. See James v. City of Wichita, 202 Kan. 222, Syl. ¶ 4, 447 P.2d 817 (1968). But that rule presupposes a court has the authority to hear the case in the first place. Here, the fundamental defect in Chalmers’ registration prevented the district court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case at all. Thus, the proper course was to dismiss the case and allow Chalmers to properly register the Florida order in Kansas in compliance with UIFSA.
Without proper registration of the Florida order in Kansas, the district court had no subject-matter jurisdiction to take any action in the case. Thus, the court correctly dismissed Chalmers’ registration petition and accompanying request for modification.
Affirmed.
* * *
As I explain, my reading of the UIFSA would be of little practical benefit to Almario Chalmers in this distinctly atypical case in which he has sought to reduce his child support obligations established in an order originating with the Florida courts. Chalmers filed in Sedgwick County to modify the support order because his daughter and Brittany Burrough, the child‘s mother, lived in Wichita and he no longer lived in Florida.
In the vast majority of cases, however, a parent with a court order for child support looks to enforce that obligation against the other parent who has defaulted. For them, the difference between a limitation on a court‘s case specific authority to issue orders enforcing an out-of-state child support order and a deprivation of subject matter jurisdiction would be substantial. A court order issued without authority in a given case typically is voidable, meaning the party ordered to act may be deemed to have ratified the order if he or she complies without objection and may be estopped to undo that compliance. So absent a timely objection, a delinquent parent could not recoup child support payments made to comply with a procedurally deficient enforcement order. Conversely, an order from a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void and cannot be enforced. The defect can be raised at any time, and the parties should be returned to the position they occupied before the order was entered. In a UIFSA action, a delinquent
Nothing in the language of the UIFSA requires the unconventional (and specious) application of subject matter jurisdiction the majority endorses. And the policies animating the UIFSA weigh strongly against the notion the drafters planted that kind of jurisdictional time bomb in the procedural mechanisms for enforcement or modification of an out-of-state support order.
Differentiating Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Case Specific Judicial Authority
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the judicial right of a court to hear a particular kind of case or legal dispute. Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639, 129 S. Ct. 1862, 173 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2009) (“‘Subject matter jurisdiction defines the court‘s authority to hear a given type of case.‘“) (quoting United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828, 104 S. Ct. 2769, 81 L. Ed. 2d 680 [1984]); Kingsley v. Kanas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, Syl. ¶ 1, 204 P.3d 562 (2009); In re Estate of Heiman, 44 Kan. App. 2d 764, 766, 241 P.3d 161 (2010). That right may be conferred by statute or constitutional mandate. In Kansas, district courts have general original jurisdiction, meaning they may hear cases or legal disputes unless they have been specifically deprived of subject matter jurisdiction. See
The parties cannot by agreement or acquiescence endow a court with subject matter jurisdiction. Kingsley, 288 Kan. 390, Syl. ¶ 1; In re Estate of Heiman, 44 Kan. App. 2d at 766. And a court is obligated to question its subject matter jurisdiction even if the parties have not. 44 Kan. App. 2d at 766. Because a court without subject matter jurisdiction lacks the right to adjudicate the type of dispute before it, any orders or judgments it issues are of no legal force. They are, in a word, void. In re Marriage of Williams, 307 Kan. at 963; In re Estate of Heiman, 44 Kan. App. 2d at 766. The losing party can attack the orders or judgments at any time, even after complying with them for years.
Although courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a type of case, they may lack the authority to adjudicate fully a particular case of that type for any number of reasons. In a typical civil case, for example, a district court lacks the authority to enter a judgment against a defaulting defendant who has entered an appearance unless the plaintiff serves a notice of intent to seek default. See
As I have just indicated, if a court deviates from a claim-processing rule, the result is a voidable order or judgment that the disadvantaged party must challenge in a timely manner or any potential relief based on the defect will be forfeited. The Iowa Court of Appeals recently outlined the rule by first explaining a court may have subject matter jurisdiction but may lack the authority to hear a particular case. In that circumstance, a court‘s judgment is voidable rather than void, so “‘where subject matter jurisdiction exists, an impediment to a court‘s authority can be obviated by consent, waiver or estoppel.‘” Matter of M.A., 895 N.W.2d at 480 (quoting State v. Mandicino, 509 N.W.2d 481, 483 [Iowa 1993]). The principle is well settled. See Union Pacific R. Co., 558 U.S. at 81-82; State ex rel. Gains v. Go Go Girls Cabaret, Inc., 187 Ohio App. 3d 356, 362, 932 N.E.2d 353 (2010) (“[L]ack of subject-matter jurisdiction is the type of jurisdiction that can void a judgment; however, a lack of authority to rule when the court has subject-matter jurisdiction results in a voidable rather than a void judgment.“); 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Motions, Rules, and Orders § 47 (“[A]n order entered by a district court having jurisdiction but
Structure and Purpose of the UIFSA
The question here becomes how those principles of subject matter jurisdiction and judicial authority to act in a specific case apply to Chalmers’ inarguable failure to file a legally sufficient registration of the Florida child support order with the Sedgwick County District Court. The answer requires an examination of the language and purpose of the UIFSA.
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws finalized the model UIFSA in 1992 with the aim of facilitating the interstate enforcement of child support orders and curtailing efforts of parents required to pay support to evade their obligations by moving to and obtaining conflicting orders in other states, among other ploys. Early on, Congress “encouraged” states to adopt the UIFSA by conditioning the receipt of federal funding for child support enforcement services on its enactment. See UIFSA, Prefatory Note at 1 (rev. 2008). The fiscal carrot worked, and all 50 states have enacted the UIFSA. The model act has been revised periodically, most recently in 2008. Kansas has adopted the latest version of the UIFSA.
Pertinent here, the UIFSA generally permits a court in one state to enforce a support order issued in another state and, in more limited circumstances, to modify such an order. See
The statutory requirements for registering an out-of-state order preparatory to seeking either court enforcement or modification are set out in
I, too, find Chalmers’ argument that Burrough waited too long to challenge the deficient registration unavailing. Chalmers relies on the 20-day time limit in
When an out-of-state child support order has been successfully registered in Kansas, the district court may then issue orders to enforce it.
Alternatively, a Kansas district court can modify a properly registered support order from another state if: (1) the child is a resident of Kansas; (2) the district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over one of the parties to the order; and (3) all of the parties to the order have filed consents with the court that issued the order requesting modification and continuing jurisdiction over the order in this state.
Under the UIFSA, the court issuing a child custody support order retains “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” to modify the order until another court renders a procedurally proper modification of that order.
The model UIFSA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on courts to handle child support issues generally or to enter support orders specifically. Nor does it purport to do so. The Act defines a covered order as “a support order for a child . . . under the law of the issuing state.” UIFSA, § 102(2) (rev. 2008). So courts derive their subject matter jurisdiction over child support from legal sources external to the UIFSA. Kansas is no exception. See
First, to enforce or modify an out-of-state support order, the party seeking court intervention must successfully register the order. Registration triggers the court‘s authority to enforce the order and is a condition precedent for a request to modify the order. As such, registration is simply a procedural gateway for a court to exercise authority over the specific order and the parties bound by that order. The drafters of the UIFSA intended nothing more. They describe registration as “a process, and the failure to register does not deprive an otherwise appropriate forum of subject matter jurisdiction.” See UIFSA, § 601, comment at 73 (rev. 2008). The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently recognized that registration under the UIFSA “is a procedural requirement, not a jurisdictional one.” Hart v. Hart, 836 S.E.2d 244, 248 (N.C. App. 2019) (citing
Similarly, the procedures permitting a court to modify an out-of-state support order after it has been registered reflect claims-processing rules and not a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. Those procedures bear none of the hallmarks of subject matter
In construing a different statutory scheme dealing with the treatment of military pensions in divorce actions, the Kansas Supreme Court relied on the absence of any reference to subject matter jurisdiction in the statutory language coupled with the enumeration of “concepts related to a court‘s authority over a person” to find the scheme did not affect subject matter jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Williams, 307 Kan. at 974. The same force of reasoning can be applied to the UIFSA and leads to the same conclusion. The statutory scheme addresses the enforcement and modification of a given child support order and the rights and obligations of the individual parties to that order rather than creating a broad judicial power over child support as an area of law or a subject matter. So the “concepts” of the UIFSA focus on the handling of individual support orders. The systemic force of the UIFSA comes from its universal adoption across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—not from some regulation of the subject matter jurisdiction of those courts.
In sum, the UIFSA does not bestow subject matter jurisdiction either through registration of an out-of-state order for enforcement or the additional requirements for
Majority and District Court Misconstrue UIFSA
Deviating from the governing jurisdictional principles and the language of the UIFSA, the district court and the majority have erred in concluding Chalmers’ legally inadequate registration deprives them of subject matter jurisdiction. They consequently have erred in determining the district court‘s orders were void and the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As I have indicated, the correct analysis shows the district court exceeded its authority in this case in issuing the orders modifying Chalmers’ support. The orders were voidable, not void. Burrough did properly challenge them, and the district court, therefore, could set them aside, i.e., vacate or void them, upon her request.
But Chalmers’ action should not have been dismissed, since the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. He should have been allowed to file an amended registration substantially complying with
For example, assume a recipient of child support payments (typically the child‘s mother) attempted to register a Missouri circuit court‘s support order for enforcement in the Sedgwick County District Court four years ago because the payor (typically the child‘s father) had moved to and now works in Wichita. But, like here, the registration did not include copies of the Missouri support order. In the absence of any legal objection from the payor, the recipient has obtained and executed income withholding orders, garnishments, or some combination during that time, covering current payments and eating into a substantial arrearage. The recovery likely would be measured in the thousands of dollars, if not tens of thousands.
The payor then hears about this opinion when it is published and files a motion to have the district court‘s collection efforts declared void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, since the Missouri support order wasn‘t satisfactorily registered. He would be right under the rule the majority fashions, and unscrambling the mess would impose a hardship on someone, likely the recipient of the support payments and, thus, the child, since the seemingly successful collection efforts would have to be undone. Cf. Crist v. Hunan Palace, Inc., 277 Kan. 706, 718, 89 P.3d 573 (2004) (garnishment invalid if underlying judgment void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); People v. Kim, 212 Cal. App. 4th, 117, 125, 151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154 (2012) (A void judgment “‘is, in legal effect, no judgment‘” and “‘[b]eing worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless.‘“). The delinquent payor would reap an inequitable benefit. But if the inadequate registration simply resulted in voidable collection orders, the payor‘s late attack presumably would be barred by forfeiture, acquiescence, or estoppel. See Matter of M.A., 895 N.W.2d at 480; 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 27 (“A court‘s failure to follow proper procedure results in an act in excess of its jurisdiction such that the judgment remains valid but voidable, and the parties may be precluded from setting it aside by waiver or estoppel.“). That result better serves the purposes of the UIFSA and fairly balances the rights of the parties to a support order.
Ultimately, the majority never lays out a developed explanation for finding the UIFSA confers subject matter jurisdiction when neither its express language nor its operation actually supports that sort of expansive conclusion. The majority refers to “the unique jurisdictional constraints of UIFSA,” but that‘s no more than a phantom refuge that could be applied by rote to a lot of model statutory schemes. Slip op. at 11. Uniqueness is not itself a basis for or an indicator of subject matter jurisdiction. Inferentially at least, the majority seems to equate the UIFSA‘s reference to a court‘s “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” over a particular child support order and the parties to it with subject matter jurisdiction over child support issues generally. But the fit is distinctly untidy, since it works only by ignoring the basic tenets of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, it would fail here, since registration of a support order does not affect a court‘s continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the substance of the order. Registration merely permits a court in another state to enforce the order as written against a party over whom that court may exercise personal jurisdiction.
The strange sort of evanescent subject matter jurisdiction the majority ascribes to the UIFSA is unnecessary to the Act‘s fundamental objectives. The UIFSA‘s procedural requirements for registration and the additional mandated proof for modification that the parties and child no longer have a connection to the state issuing a support order satisfactorily protect against forum shopping and conflicting orders, especially as a delinquent parent‘s device to evade support obligations. There is no reason to imbue those protections with the exceptional power of subject matter jurisdiction they would not otherwise command. Rendering enforcement actions void for lack of subject matter
The majority cites, more or less in passing, two cases from other states labeling the procedural requirements in the UIFSA as conditions conferring subject matter jurisdiction. Neither case offers persuasive support for the proposition. In Auclair v. Bolderson, 6 A.D.3d 892, 895, 775 N.Y.S.2d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004), the court treated the failure to register an out-of-state child support order as a defect defeating subject matter jurisdiction of the New York courts. But the Auclair decision falls into the rabbit hole the Supreme Court described and warned against in Union Pacific: Without identifying or discussing the contours of subject matter jurisdiction, the decision simply assumes (incorrectly) the claim processing rules of the UIFSA and the parallel Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act,
The majority also cites Gentzel v. Williams, 25 Kan. App. 2d 552, 557-58, 965 P.2d 855 (1998), but that case mistakenly labels the UIFSA‘s limitation on where a party may seek modification of a support order as an issue of subject matter jurisdiction when it actually deals with venue. As I have already indicated, the UIFSA prohibits a party from seeking modification of an out-of-state support order in the state in which he or she
In Gentzel, Williams, who had moved to Kansas, filed in Reno County District Court seeking a reduction in his child support under an order that had been issued in Arizona. By then, Gentzel and the children had moved to Texas. The district court granted the reduction, and Gentzel appealed. This court correctly recognized Williams did not satisfy the requirements in
Moreover, the parties in Gentzel could have consented to proceed in the Reno County District Court—an option wholly inconsistent with a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
There is, to be sure, a division of authority on whether compliance with the requirements for registration or modification of an out-of-state support order are conditions precedent for subject matter jurisdiction or simply for judicial authority over the particular order and the parties to it. See Pappas v. O‘Brien, 193 Vt. 340, 351 n.5, 67 A.3d 916 (2013) (recognizing split of authority, citing cases, and declining to address the issue). Cases coming down on the side of subject matter jurisdiction join Auclair in the rabbit hole with their summary conclusions and lack of analysis. See, e.g., McCarthy v. McCarthy, 785 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000); Stone v. Davis, 148 Cal. App. 4th 596, 602, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 833 (2007); State ex rel. Freeman v. Sadlier, 586 N.W.2d 171, 173-74 (S.D. 1998). Cases rejecting subject matter bars, typified by In re Schneider, 173 Wash. 2d at 360-62, do so after assessing the legal principles governing jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Haugh, 225 Cal. App. 4th 963, 977, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (2014); Hart, 836 S.E.2d at 248; Kendall v. Kendall, 340 S.W.3d 483, 498-501 (Tex. App. 2011). I haven‘t attempted to survey the competing cases or to count noses as to how many there are on each side. As my analysis suggests, we should align with those courts rejecting the idea that the failure to comply with the registration requirements of the UIFSA strips a court of subject matter jurisdiction.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority‘s decision to affirm the district court in dismissing Chalmers’ action for want of subject matter jurisdiction because he failed to substantially comply with