Lustig v. LustigLustig v. Lustig
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Konenkamp
[¶ 1] Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), if a court finds it is an inconvenient forum for a custody determination, it may decline jurisdiction when another state provides a more appropriate forum. In this case, the circuit court found Minnesota the suitable forum not only for custody, but also for the entire divorce. May South Dakota courts dismiss a valid divorce action if another state provides a more appropriate forum? We hold they cannot, and reverse the dismissal of the divorce, but affirm the order declining custody jurisdiction.
Background
[¶2] Karl and Susan Lustig married in Watertown on August 18, 1968, and raised five children. Karl is a physician and Susan, though not presently employed, is an occupational therapist. They lived in Minnesota from 1983 to 1992 and then moved to Lawrence County, South Dakota. The Lustigs kept a high-priced lake shore home in Beltra-mi County, Minnesota, but they also acquired substantial property in Lawrence County. In September 1995, Susan and the two youngest children, Amy and David, moved back to Beltrami County. On February 20, 1996, Karl commenced divorce proceedings in Lawrence County. By then, Amy was age 15 and David had turned 18. After making written demand as required by
[¶3] In circuit court, Susan asserted it would be more difficult for her and the witnesses to attend trial in Lawrence County than it would be for Karl to appear in Minnesota. The minor child lived there, and Susan had at least twelve local witnesses who would testify on custody issues. Beltrami and Lawrence counties are over 650 roñes apart.
[¶ 4] Whfie concluding it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties, the circuit court ruled Susan was entitled to a change of venue to her county of residence. 1 Declining jurisdiction, the circuit court dismissed the entire divorce action and deferred to the Beltrami County court, noting:
By telephone conferences of May 1 and 2, 1996, the Honorable Paul E. Rasmussen, Judge of the District Court in and for Beltrami County, Minnesota, has agreed that his Court is the more appropriate forum for this litigation and has indicated a willingness to hear and determine the issues. This Court takes judicial notice of the FINDINGS OF FACT and ORDER of the District Court, dated May 2, 1996, denying Plaintiffs [Karl’s] Motion to Dismiss the Minnesota divorce action for lack of jurisdiction (Fñe NO. # F8-96-341).
Karl appeals, añeging the court had no authority to change venue to Minnesota under
Standard of Review
[¶ 5] We review questions of fact under a clearly erroneous standard. Therkildsen v. Fisher Ben., 1996 SD 39, ¶ 8, 545 N.W.2d 834, 836; Lindquist v. Bisch, 1996 SD 4, ¶ 16, 542 N.W.2d 138, 141. Questions of law, including, statutory construction, we review de novo. West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington County, 1996 SD 70, ¶ 6, 549 N.W.2d 683, 685. As the questions here are primarily matters of statutory interpretation, we review them under the de novo standard. Wharf Resources v. Farrier, 1996 SD 110, ¶ 5, 552 N.W.2d 610, 612. A court’s fafiure to consider the factors relevant to the principle of inconvenient forum under the UCCJA is an abuse of discretion. 1 Homer H. Clark, Jr. The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 13.5, at 795 (2d ed 1987)(cit-ing cases); see Winkelman v. Moses, 279 N.W.2d 897 (S.D.1979).
A. Child Custody Jurisdiction — Inconven ient Forum
[¶ 6] The UCCJA attempts to grant stability to custody litigation, discouraging “jurisdictional competition” and promoting communication between courts toward the goal of resolving disputes in the best interests of children.
In re M.C.S.,
504 N.W.2d 322, 329 n * (S.D.1993)(Sabers, J., concurring). Before a court may decide custody, it must possess jurisdiction.
1) ... is the home state of the child ...; or
2) ... is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships....
[I]ts purpose is to limit jurisdiction’ rather than proliferate it. The first clause of the paragraph is important: jurisdiction exists only if it is in the child’s interest, not merely the interest or convenience of the feuding parties, to determine custody in a particular state. The interest of the child is served when the forum has optimum access to relevant evidence about the child and the family. There must be maximum rather than minimum contact with the state.
Comment on Section 3, Jurisdiction, National Conference of Commissioner on Uniform State Laws.
[17] The circuit court found that South Dakota was the “home state” of the minor child.
A court which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
⅜ ⅜ * * * *
In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, including:
1) If another state is or recently was the child’s home state;
2) If another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the contestants;
3) If substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state;
4) If the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate.
[¶8] Given the child’s current residence in Minnesota, the number of witnesses available there, the Lustigs’ ten-year history in the locale, and the child’s enrollment in Beltrami County school and other activities, the circuit court found South Dakota would be an inconvenient forum for a child custody determination. In concluding that Minnesota was the more appropriate forum, the court took into account the Minnesota court’s findings on jurisdiction. Cf. Van Norman v. Upperman, 231 Neb. 524, 436 N.W.2d 834 (1989)(Nebraska home state for two of three children, but Kansas more convenient forum); Merman v. Merman, 412 Pa.Super. 247, 603 A.2d 201 (1992). To serve the child’s well-being, the UCCJA encourages custody to be decided where the best evidence regarding the child exists and in the jurisdiction where the child has the closest connections. In re M.C.S., 504 N.W.2d at 324. We see no abuse of discretion in deferring the child custody issue to the Minnesota court.
B. Divorce Jurisdiction — Inconvenient Forum and Venue
[¶ 9] If child custody jurisdiction was appropriately deferred, did the circuit court properly dismiss the Lawrence County divorce in favor of the later action started in Minnesota? Both
[¶ 11] Some jurisdictions by statute specifically provide that the doctrine of forum non conveniens permits courts to transfer any action, divorce or otherwise, to a court beyond state boundaries. Illinois law, for example, affords specific dismissal procedures to indulge filing the same action in a foreign jurisdiction. 3 Wisconsin law provides similarly, “If a court of this state, on motion of any party, finds that trial of an action pending before it should as a matter of substantial justice be tried in a forum outside this state, the court may ... enter an order to stay further proceedings on the action in this state_” WisStatAnn § 801.63(1) (West 1994). See E.L. Strobin, Annotation, Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens: Assumption or Denial of Jurisdiction of Action Involving Matrimonial Disputes, 9 ALR3d 545 (1966 & 1996 Supp). See generally Restatement (Second) of Conflicts § 84 (1971).
[¶ 12] No margin within
C. Divorce Jurisdiction and the UCCJA
[¶ 13] If our civil and divorce statutes disallow a change of venue out-of-state, can the
forum non conveniens
provision in the UC-CJA empower courts to dismiss an entire divorce action in favor of allowing another divorce suit to proceed along with the custody issue in another state?
If the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it may dismiss the proceedings upon condition that a custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another named state or upon any other conditions which may be just and proper_
⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ⅝: ⅜ ⅜
The court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.
The term “custody proceeding” by definition “includes proceedings in which a custody determination is one of several issues, such as an action for divorce or separation....”
[¶ 14] The UCCJA was designed to produce jurisdictional certitude for the sake of children. Deferring a child custody dispute to another forum can “assure that the best interests of the child ... are not subordinated to the parents’ interest in obtaining the best terms of the divorce.”
Vanneck v. Vanneck,
49 N.Y.2d 602, 427 N.Y.S.2d 735, 737, 404 N.E.2d 1278, 1280 (1980)(questiori of divorce jurisdiction separate from whether jurisdiction exists to entertain custody dispute). By design the UCCJA discourages divided custody hearings, not necessarily divided divorce proceedings.
While the custody issue may be decided in another state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, we know of no legal or factual basis for the trial court’s’ deference to the Massachusetts court on the issues of maintenance and child support. See § 14-13-103(2) and § 14-13-108(6), C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6B). Rather, to the extent of its jurisdiction to do so, the court must consider those issues in connection with the dissolution. Section 14-10-106(l)(b), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).
In re Marriage of Doria,
855 P.2d 28, 30 (Colo.CtApp.1993). Even if the UCCJA viewed in isolation permits dismissal of a divorce, such interpretation contradicts our specific civil and divorce jurisdiction and venue statutes. Laws must be read in consonance with an entire statutory scheme.
De Smet Ins. Co. v. Gibson,
1996 SD 102, ¶8, 552 N.W.2d 98, 101. Divorce jurisdiction here may not be dismissed or declined, as it was properly commenced first in South Dakota.
[¶ 15] Both parties have petitioned for appellate attorney fees.
[¶ 16] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
[¶ 17] MILLER, C.J., and SABERS, AMUNDSON and GILBERTSON, JJ., concur.
Notes
. . Susan never challenged the circuit court’s jurisdiction.
. . Neither side raises the applicability of the PKPA,
The title of the act is misleading and unfortunate, as it was by no means limited to criminal matters relating to kidnapping. Rather, one of the principle purposes of the PKPA was to protect the right of a decree issuing state to exercise exclusive continuing jurisdiction over its child custody orders in certain cases, and to channel custody litigation into the court having continuing jurisdiction by requiring states to give full faith and credit to the custody decrees of states retaining jurisdiction and preventing the issuance of competing decrees. (Citations omitted).
Barndt v. Barndt,
397 Pa.Super. 321, 580 A.2d 320, 325 (1990). The Act “forbids a state to exercise jurisdiction in a case already pending in another state where the court of the other state is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of the PKPA.” 1 Homer H. Clark, Jr.,
The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States
§ 13.5, at 806 (2d ed 1987). Here the circuit court entered its order of dismissal the same day the district court in Minnesota denied KarTs motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. KarTs divorce complaint in circuit court does not strictly seek custody, but only requests “custody of the minor children be as the court sees fit in the best interest of the minor children.” In any event, a “declination of jurisdiction is of course authorized by the PKPA_” Roger M. Baron,
Child Custody Jurisdiction,
38 SDLRev 479, 492 (1993);
. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187 provides, in relevant part:
Motions on Grounds for Forum Non Conve-niens
[[Image here]]
(c)Proceedings Upon Granting of Motions.
(1) Intrastate transfer of action.
* * * * * ⅜
(2) Dismissal of action. Dismissal of an action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall be upon the following conditions:
(i) if the plaintiff elects to file the action in another forum within six months of the dismissal order, the defendant shall accept service of process from that court; and
(ii) if the statute of limitations has ran in the other forum, the defendant shall waive that defense.
If the defendant refuses to abide by these conditions, the cause shall be reinstated for further proceedings in the court in which the dismissal was granted. If the court in the other forum refuses to accept jurisdiction, the plaintiff may, within 30 days of the final order refusing jurisdiction, reinstate the action in the court in which the dismissal was granted. The costs attending a dismissal may be awarded at the discretion of the court.
SCtRule 187, IIlAnnStat (Smith-Hurd 1993). See also CalCivProCode § 410.30 (West 1973)(al-lowing the dismissal of actions to a forum outside the state).
. Karl’s SouA Dakota divorce action was properly brought in Lawrence County, and, alAough it was dismissed, Ae order was still subject to appeal in Ais court.