Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Lamb v. Lamb, 14 Neb. App. 337, 707 N.W.2d 423 (2005)
The silence of the Lambs when this case was decided must have been deafening…
UCCJEA ≠ UIFSA
The modification of another state’s child support order must be addressed
under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§42-701 to 42-
751 (Reissue 2004).
Trogdon v. Trogdon, 18 Neb. App. 313, 780 N.W.2d 45 (2010)
Facts: Parties divorced in California. Mom and child later move to Nebraska and Dad moves to
Washington State. Years later Mom registers the California divorce in her home state of Nebraska, and
seeks to enforce against Dad in Washington. Dad is mailed a copy of the registration by the clerk of
district court, and files a written objection on his own with the court, disputing the amount of alleged
arrears, but not the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Two months later, in preparation for the
evidentiary hearing on his objection, he hires an attorney, who files an objection, claiming the Nebraska
court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. The district court rules that it did have jurisdiction. He later
appeals.
Held: when the father filed his objection to the registration, he asked the court to address the merits of
the cause of action. This simple fact gave the Nebraska court jurisdiction over him.
Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity
to its decisions. Hunt v. Trackwell, 262 Neb. 688, 635 N.W.2d 106 (2001). Lack of
personal jurisdiction may be waived and such jurisdiction conferred by the conduct
of the parties. Id. For example, a party that files an answer generally denying the
allegations of a petition invokes the court’s power on an issue other than personal
jurisdiction and confers on the court personal jurisdiction.
Similarly, a party who does more than call a court’s attention to the lack of personal
jurisdiction by asking for affirmative relief will not later be heard to claim that the
court lacked jurisdiction over that party. Glass v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles,
248 Neb. 501, 536 N.W.2d 344 (1995).
a confirmed support order cannot be contested with respect to any matter that could
have been asserted at the confirmation hearing.
[UIFSA] Section 42-742 goes on to enumerate the specific defenses which can be
raised when contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order and the
effect of a validly raised defense. Section 42-742 provides:
(a) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order or seeking to vacate
the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:
(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 limitation under section 42-739 precludes enforcement of some
or all of the alleged arrearages; or
(8) the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.
(b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under
subsection (a) of this section, a tribunal shall stay enforcement of the registered
order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence,
and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered order
may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.
(c) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under such subsection to the
validity or enforcement of the order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order
- 190 -