« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 5 NFP) | Main | Ind. Law - "Sex offender ban gains steam"; "The Supreme Court did not provide guidance on this issue . . . by refusing to hear an appeal" »

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Two today from the Supreme Court

In Mahmoud M. Basileh v. Arwa G. Alghusain, a 10-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Rucker writes:

In this post-dissolution action the Indiana trial court relinquished its jurisdiction over matters of child support to a California trial court. At issue is the interplay between the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. * * *

Father appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In doing so the Court of Appeals reviewed Indiana's version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA,” sometimes referred to as the “Uniform Act”) and the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (“FFCCSOA,” sometimes referred to as the “Federal Act”). The court determined: (1) Father was not a resident of Indiana within the meaning of the Federal Act, and (2) the Federal Act preempts the Uniform Act because of a conflict between the two statutes. Basileh v. Alghusain, 890 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We granted transfer to address the Court of Appeals' preemption determination. We summarily affirm its determination concerning residency. * * *

In concluding that the Federal Act preempts Indiana's version of the Uniform Act, the Court of Appeals determined there was a “crucial” distinction between the two; namely, the Uniform Act requires the parties' written consent to another state's jurisdiction, whereas the Federal Act does not. Basileh, 890 N.E.2d at 785. This conclusion hinged on the court's interpretation of the word “or” in I.C. § 31-18-2-5 that links subsection (a)(1) (the nonresidency requirement) and subsection (a)(2) (the consent requirement). * * *

The application of general rules of federal preemption leads us to conclude that Congress did not intend the Federal Act to preempt the Uniform Act. Rather, it appears that FFCCSOA was intended to follow the contours of UIFSA. There is no indication in the text of FFCCSOA or its legislative history of any intent to preempt UIFSA. And importantly for our purposes the specific provisions here at issue in Indiana's version of the Uniform Act – the nonresidency requirement and the consent requirement – are closely modeled after the federal version of the Uniform Act. “The very fact that Congress mandated that all fifty states adopt UIFSA strongly mitigates against a construction of FFCCSOA that would impliedly preempt UIFSA to any degree.” LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tenn. 2001). We therefore also conclude that the FFCCSOA does not preempt the Indiana version of UIFSA. * * *

Although we conclude Congress did not intend that the Federal Act preempt Indiana's version of the Uniform Act, we do acknowledge the Uniform Act contains a jurisdictional provision that is absent in the Federal Act, namely: a consent requirement. More specifically, I.C. § 31-18-2-5(a) essentially provides that an Indiana court retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction “if” a party or related child remains in Indiana, “or until” each party has filed written consent to jurisdiction elsewhere. The Court of Appeals in this case interpreted this provision to mean that Indiana retains jurisdiction unless both of these conditions are met. The net effect of the court's interpretation is that in order for Indiana no longer to retain continuing jurisdiction both the nonresidency requirement and the written consent requirement must be met. However we are of the view that the statute is ambiguous on this point because it is susceptible to an alternative interpretation. * * *

In this case it is of no moment that the parties did not file a written consent with the Indiana court for the California court to modify the Indiana support order. Rather, the Indiana court lost its jurisdiction because Father, like Mother and the children, is no longer an Indiana resident.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Brenda S. Wagner and Darren M. Wagner v. Bobbi J. Yates, et al, an 11-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Rucker writes:
Interpreting an insurance policy as including set-off and anti-stacking provisions, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Insurer. Concluding both provisions are ambiguous, we strictly construe the policy against the Insurer and reverse the judgment of the trial court. * * *

I * * * Applying our strict construction review to the set-off provision in American Family's Insurance's policy, we conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of American Family. On this issue the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

II * * * We are of the view that at most the provision at issue is not an anti-stacking provision at all; and at least the provision is ambiguous and therefore unenforceable. Because of this ambiguity we strictly construe the provision against American Family and in favor of Wagner. See Beam, 765 N.E.2d at 528. On this issue the trial court also erred in granting summary judgment in American Family's favor.

We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions