Amezquita v. Archuleta
101 Cal. App. 4th 1415, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 887 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For purposes of modifying an out-of-state child support order under California Family Code section 4962, the term 'resides' is synonymous with 'domicile,' requiring an intent to remain in or return to a particular state, rather than mere temporary physical presence, to establish jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Mark A. Amezquita (Husband) and Roberta D. Archuleta (Wife) divorced in New Mexico in 1990.
- The New Mexico divorce decree ordered Husband to pay Wife $600 per month in child support for their three children.
- Wife subsequently moved to California with the children.
- Husband, a sergeant in the United States Air Force, was assigned to active duty and stationed in California.
- Husband maintained a New Mexico driver’s license, voted in New Mexico, and filed income tax returns there.
- Husband held a “residual interest” in his parents’ home in New Mexico and stated his intention to return to New Mexico upon his retirement from the military.
Procedural Posture:
- Roberta D. Archuleta (Wife) moved to California with the children and registered the New Mexico child support order in Sacramento, California.
- Wife obtained an order to show cause for a modification of the support order from a California trial court.
- Wife filed a declaration stating Husband was living in San Pedro, California, and served pleadings on Husband personally in California.
- Mark A. Amezquita (Husband), in propria persona, filed a responsive declaration indicating he did not consent to the requested order but would consent to an order after legal advice.
- Husband's counsel subsequently filed a declaration and memorandum seeking to amend the responsive pleading to assert that New Mexico was the only state with jurisdiction.
- In January 2000, the California trial court concluded it had jurisdiction to modify child support and ordered Wife to prepare a formal order.
- In June 2001, the California trial court signed an order requiring Husband to pay $974 in monthly child support and $50 per month towards arrears under the New Mexico order.
- Husband appealed the California trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person 'reside' in California for the purpose of Family Code section 4962, thereby allowing a California court to modify an out-of-state child support order, when that person is stationed in California on military assignment but maintains their domicile in another state?
Opinions:
Majority - Nicholson, Acting P. J.
No, a person does not 'reside' in California for the purpose of Family Code section 4962 while stationed there in the military if their domicile remains in another state, because 'reside' in this context is synonymous with 'domicile.' The court engaged in statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of 'reside' in Family Code section 4962, which allows a California court to modify an out-of-state child support order if, among other things, all parties 'reside' in California. Acknowledging that 'residence' can have multiple meanings, the court noted that in the context of family law, California courts often interpret 'residence' as 'domicile,' which signifies a more permanent connection and an intent to remain or return. The court further emphasized that Family Code section 4962 is derived from the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), a federal mandate designed to ensure 'only one valid support order may be effective at any one time.' The most crucial provision of UIFSA, incorporated as Family Code section 4909, grants the issuing state (New Mexico in this case) 'continuing, exclusive jurisdiction' as long as it remains the 'residence' of the obligor, obligee, or child, unless all parties consent otherwise. To uphold the UIFSA's purpose of preventing conflicting support orders and maintaining a single exclusive jurisdiction, the term 'residence' in this context must mean 'domicile,' of which a person can only have one. The uncontradicted evidence showed Husband's domicile was New Mexico, as he maintained a New Mexico driver's license, voted and paid taxes there, and intended to return upon retirement, despite his temporary military assignment in California. While the court acknowledged the potential for perceived unfairness to the Wife in litigating elsewhere, it clarified that convenience for the parties does not override the UIFSA's primary goal of maintaining order and preventing conflicting support orders. The court affirmed that California courts retain jurisdiction to enforce properly registered out-of-state support orders, but not to modify them when the jurisdictional requirements based on domicile are not met.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the jurisdictional requirements for modifying out-of-state child support orders under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), specifically for military personnel or individuals with temporary assignments. By equating 'residence' with 'domicile,' the court reinforces the principle of 'continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,' emphasizing that intent to remain or return to a state is paramount over mere physical presence. This interpretation prevents forum shopping and conflicting support orders, promoting uniformity and stability in interstate child support enforcement. Future cases will likely rely on this precedent to determine modification jurisdiction in situations involving mobile populations or individuals whose physical location differs from their established domicile, particularly within the military context.
