Andreas Walter Mattes v. Terri Ann Mattes

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 3/12/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2081122 Andreas Walter Mattes v. T e r r i Ann Mattes Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-07-900197) THOMAS, J u d g e . Andreas judgment support awarding Walter Mattes of the Baldwin obligation ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Circuit to Terri Court Ann M a t t e s t h e mother p a s t expenses, from t h e modifying h i s c h i l d ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d prejudgment i n t e r e s t , and 2081122 an attorney fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I n 1991, t h e f a t h e r , a c i t i z e n o f t h e F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f Germany, and t h e m o t h e r , a c i t i z e n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , married in Florida. Germany. J.M. Two children (collectively In Thereafter, 2003, were b o r n referred while Germany, t h e p a r t i e s the the parties the father support. parties separated. children's activities. had judgment. The a g r e e m e n t a l s o agreed the mother education, were still and The p a r t i e s The for medical educational in entered into a i n t o t h e i r J u l y 2, agreement p r o v i d e d 1 that t o t h e m o t h e r as child provided that her residing actual care, the father expenses and expenses, would for the extracurricular The a g r e e m e n t f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t that P.M. in t o as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . w o u l d p a y ¬964 p e r month reimburse resided of the marriage, s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t t h a t was i n c o r p o r a t e d 2004, German d i v o r c e were the p a r t i e s including private- s c h o o l t u i t i o n , w o u l d t o t a l a p p r o x i m a t e l y ¬21,000 p e r y e a r and that expenses for extracurricular activities would total a p p r o x i m a t e l y ¬3,000 p e r y e a r . 1 At t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , ¬964 e q u a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 , 2 1 4 . 2 2081122 I n J u l y 2003, a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d , the c h i l d r e n moved f r o m Germany t o Memphis, T e n n e s s e e . 2005, t h e m o t h e r r e m a r r i e d t o Orange Beach. t h e mother and In a n d she a n d t h e c h i l d r e n r e l o c a t e d The f a t h e r moved t o t h e U n i t e d States i n 2 0 0 4 ; he c u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s i n C a l i f o r n i a . I n O c t o b e r 2006, t h e m o t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e M o b i l e Circuit C o u r t t o d o m e s t i c a t e t h e p a r t i e s ' f o r e i g n d i v o r c e judgment, t o hold the father payments the for failure as r e q u i r e d b y t h e d i v o r c e amount father i n contempt was of the father's personally Alabama v i s i t i n g with the c h i l d r e n . certain judgment, and t o m o d i f y child-support served t o make obligation. process while The he was i n I n response t o the mother's p e t i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r moved t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t t o d i s m i s s the mother's p e t i t i o n f o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t o t r a n s f e r the case t o the Baldwin Court ("the t r i a l court"). p a r t i e s , the Mobile B a s e d on an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e C i r c u i t Court granted to t r a n s f e r the case t o the t r i a l The case, father alleging jurisdiction then that moved the Circuit court. the t r i a l trial the f a t h e r ' s motion court court to dismiss lacked over t h e f a t h e r and t h a t t h e t r i a l 3 the personal court lacked 2081122 subject-matter divorce the jurisdiction judgment. contained o r m o d i f y t h e German The f a t h e r a l s o a l l e g e d i n h i s m o t i o n p a r t i e s had e n t e r e d that to enforce a into a valid provision stating antenuptial that German that agreement law would c o n t r o l t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f c h i l d s u p p o r t and t h a t t h e d i v o r c e judgment c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n d e c l a r i n g t h a t German l a w w o u l d apply to the divorce. court denied the f a t h e r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s ; i t d i d not r u l e at that time mother's on A f t e r conducting a hearing, the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f German the t r i a l law to the petition. On F e b r u a r y 4, 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e , requesting trial that the t r i a l until the p a r t i e s court l i m i t the evidence o f f e r e d at provided the t r i a l German l a w t h a t was a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e . that the choice-of-law and the p r o v i s i o n s court the divorce judgment hearing, determining modification the t r i a l that German of c h i l d court granted the agreement mandated a p p l i c a t i o n o f German l a w t o t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n . a the The f a t h e r a r g u e d p r o v i s i o n i n the antenuptial of with father's the Following motion, l a w c o n t r o l l e d t h e c a l c u l a t i o n and support. 4 Both parties subsequently 2081122 submitted to the t r i a l c o u r t a f f i d a v i t s f r o m German a t t o r n e y s on t h e r e l e v a n t a r e a s o f German l a w . On May 18, 2009, following a hearing, the t r i a l e n t e r e d a judgment t h a t i n c r e a s e d t h e f a t h e r ' s child-support o b l i g a t i o n t o $4,000 p e r month, a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r i n c l u d i n g an a w a r d o f p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t , for past including medical prejudgment educational including expenses, awarded interest, expenses, and prejudgment as awarded interest, as extracurricular-activity future $6,000 per expenses. an year attorney on cap The t r i a l fee. s e e k i n g a new or cap trial on reimbursement mother subject-matter $16,363.47, reimbursement f o r past placed a e x p e n s e s and a judgment educational future extracurricular-activity The father filed a postjudgment motion or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , The t r i a l to alter, first argues jurisdiction that over amend, court denied the f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n , and t h e f a t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s father f o r past c o u r t a l s o a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r $40,000 as v a c a t e t h e judgment. The $33,025.57, The expenses. $10,000 p e r y e a r $13,246.78, as r e i m b u r s e m e n t the mother the court the the trial case. court. court The lacked Alabama U n i f o r m I n t e r s t a t e F a m i l y S u p p o r t A c t ("the U I F S A " ) , c o d i f i e d 5 2081122 at A l a . Code 1975, courts' jurisdiction mother's p e t i t i o n child-support to modify requirements Section over f o r e i g n 30-3A-611 et seq., governs child-support An A l a b a m a c o u r t may o b t a i n foreign of 30-3A-101 § child-support 30-3A-611 of the order UIFSA orders. The jurisdiction only have i f been provides: "(a) After a child-support order a n o t h e r s t a t e has b e e n r e g i s t e r e d i n t h i s r e s p o n d i n g c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may m o d i f y o n l y i f S e c t i o n 30-3A-613 does n o t a p p l y n o t i c e and h e a r i n g i t f i n d s t h a t : "(1) Alabama s o u g h t t o m o d i f y and t o e n f o r c e t h e German order. a § the following issued i n s t a t e , the that order and a f t e r requirements are met: "(i) the child, individual obligee, and obligor do n o t r e s i d e in issuing state; the the the " ( i i ) a p e t i t i o n e r who i s a n o n r e s i d e n t of t h i s s t a t e seeks m o d i f i c a t i o n ; and "(iii) the respondent is subject to the personal j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court of t h i s s t a t e ; or "(2) t h e c h i l d , o r a p a r t y who i s an individual, i s subject to the personal j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e and a l l o f t h e p a r t i e s who a r e i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e filed written consents i n the i s s u i n g 6 the met. 2081122 t r i b u n a l f o r a court of t h i s state t o modify the support order and assume continuing, e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the o r d e r . However, i f t h e i s s u i n g s t a t e i s a f o r e i g n j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t has n o t e n a c t e d a law or established procedures s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the procedures under t h i s chapter, the consent o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e d o f an i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d i n g i n t h i s state i s not required f o r the court t o assume jurisdiction to modify the child-support order. "(b) M o d i f i c a t i o n o f a r e g i s t e r e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t order i s subject to the same requirements, procedures, and defenses that apply to the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r i s s u e d b y a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e a n d t h e o r d e r may be e n f o r c e d a n d s a t i s f i e d i n t h e same manner. " ( c ) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may n o t m o d i f y any a s p e c t o f a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r t h a t may n o t be m o d i f i e d u n d e r t h e l a w o f t h e i s s u i n g s t a t e . I f two o r more t r i b u n a l s have i s s u e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t orders f o r t h e same o b l i g o r a n d c h i l d , t h e o r d e r that c o n t r o l s a n d must be so r e c o g n i z e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3A-207 e s t a b l i s h e s t h e a s p e c t s o f t h e s u p p o r t order which are nonmodifiable. "(d) On i s s u a n c e o f an o r d e r modifying a child-support order issued i n another s t a t e , a court o f t h i s s t a t e becomes t h e c o u r t h a v i n g c o n t i n u i n g , exclusive jurisdiction." In t h i s to modify resident case, t h e mother, a r e s i d e n t of Alabama, the of child-support California. obligation Because of the t h e mother, sought father, who a i s the p e t i t i o n e r , i s a r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f § 30- 7 2081122 3A-611(a) (1) ( i i ) t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r n o t be a r e s i d e n t o f t h i s s t a t e h a s n o t b e e n met. states that when The O f f i c i a l the i s s u i n g exclusive jurisdiction state Comment t o § 30-3A-611 has lost over the c h i l d - s u p p o r t continuing, order " t h e o b l i g e e may s e e k m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e o b l i g o r ' s s t a t e o f r e s i d e n c e , o r ... t h e o b l i g o r may s e e k a modification i n the obligee's state of residence. T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n attempts t o a c h i e v e a rough j u s t i c e between t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s by preventing a litigant from choosing t o seek m o d i f i c a t i o n i n a l o c a l t r i b u n a l t o t h e marked d i s a d v a n t a g e o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y . F o r e x a m p l e , an o b l i g o r v i s i t i n g the c h i l d r e n at the residence of t h e o b l i g e e c a n n o t be v a l i d l y s e r v e d w i t h c i t a t i o n accompanied by a motion t o modify t h e support order. Even though such p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e o f t h e o b l i g o r i n t h e o b l i g e e ' s home s t a t e i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i s i t e s o f Burnham v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 495 U.S. 604 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , t h e m o t i o n t o m o d i f y does n o t f u l f i l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f b e i n g b r o u g h t b y 'a [ p e t i t i o n e r ] who i s a n o n r e s i d e n t of this State....' In short, the obligee i s required to r e g i s t e r t h e e x i s t i n g order and seek m o d i f i c a t i o n o f that order in a state which has personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over the o b l i g o r other than the s t a t e of t h e o b l i g e e ' s r e s i d e n c e . Most t y p i c a l l y this w i l l be t h e s t a t e o f r e s i d e n c e o f t h e o b l i g o r . " T h u s , u n d e r t h e UIFSA, t h e m o t h e r was r e q u i r e d action t o modify the father's child-support to bring her obligation i n a s t a t e o t h e r t h a n Alabama t h a t c o u l d p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e jurisdiction over the father. Therefore, because r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 30-3A-611 were n o t met, t h e t r i a l 8 personal the court d i d 2081122 not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the mother's p e t i t i o n t o modify the father's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . The mother also p e t i t i o n e d the t r i a l court fora rule nisi, seeking t o enforce t h e German c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r . party seeking to enforce a f o r e i g n child-support order register the foreign requirements child-support order according must to the o f § 30-3A-602 o f t h e UIFSA, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : "(a) A s u p p o r t o r d e r o r i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r o f a n o t h e r s t a t e may be r e g i s t e r e d i n t h i s s t a t e b y s e n d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g documents and i n f o r m a t i o n t o the a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e : "(1) a l e t t e r of t r a n s m i t t a l t o the court requesting registration and enforcement; "(2) two copies, including one certified copy, of a l l orders t o be r e g i s t e r e d , i n c l u d i n g any m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r ; "(3) a sworn s t a t e m e n t b y t h e p a r t y seeking registration or a certified statement by the t r i b u n a l o r c o l l e c t i o n a g e n c y s h o w i n g t h e amount o f a n y a r r e a r a g e ; "(4) known: and t h e name o f t h e o b l i g o r a n d , " ( i ) the o b l i g o r ' s address s o c i a l s e c u r i t y number; " ( i i ) t h e name a n d a d d r e s s of t h e o b l i g o r ' s employer and any 9 i f A 2081122 other source o b l i g o r ; and of income of the " ( i i i ) a d e s c r i p t i o n and t h e location of property of the o b l i g o r i n t h i s s t a t e n o t exempt f r o m e x e c u t i o n ; and "(5) the name and address of the o b l i g e e and, i f a p p l i c a b l e , t h e a g e n c y o r p e r s o n t o whom s u p p o r t payments a r e t o be remitted. "(b) On r e c e i p t o f a r e q u e s t f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n , t h e r e g i s t e r i n g c o u r t s h a l l c a u s e t h e o r d e r t o be f i l e d as a f o r e i g n j u d g m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h one c o p y o f t h e d o c u m e n t s and information, regardless of t h e i r form. "(c) A p e t i t i o n or comparable p l e a d i n g seeking a remedy t h a t must be a f f i r m a t i v e l y s o u g h t u n d e r o t h e r l a w o f t h i s s t a t e may be f i l e d a t t h e same t i m e as t h e r e q u e s t f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n o r l a t e r . The p l e a d i n g must s p e c i f y t h e g r o u n d s f o r t h e remedy sought." In this case, the r e q u i r e m e n t t o f i l e two child-support order mother d i d not c o p i e s , one with the f o l l o w the statutory o f them c e r t i f i e d , clerk of the trial of the court. B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t meet t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 30-3A-602, the trial court never obtained subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over the f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t order. trial c o u l d not e n f o r c e S.A.T. v. E.D., 972 So. the 2d Thus, the foreign child-support order. See 804, 10 807 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) 2081122 (holding enforce that a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to an u n r e g i s t e r e d f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r ) . Because the trial court did not have subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n to enforce or to modify the f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t order, Inc. v. 2006). the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s v o i d . G u l f Beach H o t e l , S t a t e ex r e l . W h e t s t o n e , 935 So. A v o i d judgment w i l l not s u p p o r t 2d 1177, an a p p e a l . a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d a p p e a l v o i d j u d g m e n t . " Vann v. Cook, 989 App. 2008). Therefore, we So. dismiss 2d 556, the 1183 559 Id. "[A]n from such a (Ala. Civ. f a t h e r ' s appeal i n s t r u c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s May (Ala. and 18, 2009, j u d g m e n t . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 11 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.