« Ind. Decisions - 4 Indiana opinions today from 7th Circuit | Main | Ind. Decisions - Tax Court issues one NFP today »

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Andre L. LaFlamme v. Carrie Goodwin, an 11-page opinion, Judge Friedlander writes:

Andre Laflamme appeals the trial court's order refusing to set aside a default judgment that modified a California child support order. Laflamme presents two issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive: Did the trial court have personal jurisdiction over Laflamme? We reverse and remand. * * *

In this case, there are no contacts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Laflamme. Laflamme has never lived in Indiana and the couple's daughter was not conceived in Indiana. Laflamme's only contacts with Indiana include sending “cards, letters and gifts” to his daughter in the past, responding to Goodwin's request that he continue paying child support and assist in paying post-secondary education expenses for the couple's daughter, and paying child support pursuant to the California court's order. We agree with Laflamme that none of these contacts constitute acts of “purposefully avail[ing himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within [Indiana], thus invoking the benefits and protections of [Indiana's] laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). Laflamme's contacts with Indiana were incidental to Goodwin's decision to move to this state with Amanda and too attenuated to subject him to the jurisdiction of Indiana courts. See Hotmix & Bituminous Equip. Inc. v. Hardrock Equip. Corp., 719 N.E.2d 824 (finding no minimum contacts despite communication through interstate telephone calls and letters that culminated in a business relationship).

We address one other argument made by Goodwin in support of the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Laflamme. The fact Laflamme did not contest personal jurisdiction when the Indiana court domesticated the California divorce decree in 1999 does not serve as a valid waiver of his right to now contest the Indiana court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him for purposes of modifying his child support. In this same vein, choosing not to challenge personal jurisdiction at the time of the domestication order does not render Laflamme's present challenge to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction untimely. * * *

In short, we conclude the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Laflamme under UIFSA. Consequently, the court's default judgment and order modifying Laflamme's child support obligation are void. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment and dismiss the action. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded with instructions that Goodwin's request for modification be dismissed.

In In the Matter of: J.W., Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. v. V.B. and C.W. , a 3-page ruling, Judge Friedlander's opinion reverses the trial court order that the Indiana Department of Child Services pay the guardian ad litem fees:
The question presented is whether the DCS is obligated to pay the GAL’s fees, or whether, as the DCS contends, that obligation properly belongs to the county – in this case, Hendricks County. Another panel of this court recently addressed precisely this issue. In In re N.S., 908 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) we undertook an examination of the relevant statutes, i.e., Ind. Code Ann. § 31-40-3-2 (West, Premise through 2009 Public Laws approved and effective though 4/20/2009), and Ind. Code Ann. § 33-24-6-4 (West, Premise through 2009 Public Laws approved and effective though 4/20/2009). [where we concluded] "Under our current statutory scheme, however, it is clear that the burden of paying for services rendered by GALs or CASAs should be attributed to and paid for by the county." * * *

Accordingly, adopting the rationale set out in In re N.S., we conclude that the trial court erred in ordering the DCS to pay the fees associated with J.W.’s GAL.
Judgment reversed.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

J.M. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (7):

Richard D. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Moses Pierce v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Brian Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jason R. Barton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Britt Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Patrick Germany v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Richard Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 20, 2009 11:36 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions