Lauren P. Chapman v. Jason Scott Bunch

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/25/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 Reporter of Decisions, Alabama 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, 2011-2012 2101139 Lauren P. Chapman v. Jason S c o t t Bunch Appeal from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t (DR-93-385.01) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . The marriage J a s o n S c o t t Bunch o f L a u r e n P. Chapman ("the f a t h e r " ) f r o m w h i c h one c h i l d was b o r n t o t h e p a r t i e s on J u l y 12, 1992 Marshall Circuit the child was d i s s o l v e d b y t h e C o u r t i n December 1993; c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d was a w a r d e d b y t h a t c o u r t t o t h e m o t h e r . before ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d attained I n A p r i l 2011, j u s t t h e age o f 19 y e a r s , t h e mother 2101139 filed a petition seeking an in that court award of p o s t m i n o r i t y to modify that educational support f o r c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o t h e h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 986 ( A l a . 1989); the mother a v e r r e d were b o t h r e s i d e n t s o f L o u i s i a n a . to dismiss that he that The resided in m o t h e r and the 2007. h i s motion, In Tennessee c h i l d had father codified at § 30-3A-205, proposition that jurisdiction to modify the judgment because Alabama. The father's motion postjudgment the trial neither trial court to motion 1997 and that since at upon § 205 filed Ala. Code had 1975, lost the for nor the a the subject-matter child judgment divorce remained granting and by least ("UIFSA"), w h i c h A l a b a m a entered dismiss the of support p r o v i s i o n s of the party child averring relied court the 2d a motion resided i n Louisiana the and So. father f i l e d since Uniform I n t e r s t a t e Family Support Act has she 550 the jurisdiction, f o r l a c k of subject-matter had judgment, thereafter the mother in the denied a attacking the c o r r e c t n e s s of t h a t judgment; the mother then a p p e a l e d to this court. The retained mother contends subject-matter p r o v i s i o n s o f i t s 1993 on appeal jurisdiction that to the modify trial the court support d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , c i t i n g H a l l v. 2 Hall, 2101139 524 So. 2d 370 728 So. 2d 128 an Alabama jurisdiction ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988), 1 and ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , as s u p p o r t i n g trial to court modify has Ex p a r t e the p r o p o s i t i o n continuing monetary Carstens, that subject-matter obligations previously e s t a b l i s h e d by t h a t c o u r t i n a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . However, l e g a l landscape i n e x i s t e n c e at the time t h a t the modification petitions were f i l e d drastically in Hall 1998. UIFSA p r o v i d e s , adoption of was a p p l i e s t o p r o c e e d i n g s i n i t i a t e d on o r a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, § Alabama's (1997) which A l a . Code 1975, by Carstens UIFSA, See changed (1985) and the 30-3A-905(a). in pertinent part: "A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e i s s u i n g a s u p p o r t order c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e law o f t h i s s t a t e has c o n t i n u i n g e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over a c h i l d - s u p p o r t order: "(1) as l o n g as t h i s s t a t e r e m a i n s t h e residence of the o b l i g o r , the i n d i v i d u a l o b l i g e e , o r t h e c h i l d f o r whose b e n e f i t t h e support order i s i s s u e d ; or "(2) u n t i l a l l o f t h e p a r t i e s who are i n d i v i d u a l s have f i l e d w r i t t e n c o n s e n t s w i t h the court of t h i s s t a t e f o r a t r i b u n a l of another s t a t e to modify the order and assume c o n t i n u i n g , e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . " We note t h a t because the a p p e l l a n t i n H a l l d i d not c o n t e s t the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t i n t h a t c a s e (see 524 So. 2d a t 3 7 1 ) , any p r o n o u n c e m e n t i n our opinion to the effect that subject-matter jurisdiction n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t i n u e s as t o m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s b a s e d upon t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s a r e " e x t e n s i o n s " o f t h e o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e a c t i o n amounts t o mere d i c t a . 1 3 2101139 A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 A - 2 0 5 ( a ) . § 205 states obligor, " i f a l l the relevant the i n d i v i d u a l permanently longer that, left obligee, the issuing h a s an a p p r o p r i a t e justify exercise The O f f i c i a l Comment t o UIFSA and state, nexus w i t h of j u r i s d i c t i o n the issuing the have state no the p a r t i e s or c h i l d to t o modify"; o f anyone i n v o l v e d , the c h i l d i s s u i n g t r i b u n a l h a s no c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n circumstances persons f u r t h e r , "the about t h e f a c t u a l and t h e t a x p a y e r s o f t h a t s t a t e have no r e a s o n t o e x p e n d p u b l i c f u n d s on t h e p r o c e s s . " Ala. Code Lattimore 1975, § 30-3A-205, v. L a t t i m o r e , Official Comment; accord 991 So. 2d 239, 243 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , u n d e r UIFSA, A l a b a m a c o u r t s may m o d i f y an Alabama c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r or t h e concerned c h i l d "only i f the o b l i g o r , the obligee, a f f e c t e d by t h a t order reside i nthe s t a t e a n d a l l 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 have n o t f i l e d w r i t t e n consent f o r the t r i b u n a l of another s t a t e t o e x e r c i s e jurisdiction over the c h i l d - s u p p o r t order"). In t h i s case, u n l i k e i n L a t t i m o r e contrary c o n c l u s i o n ) , t h e r e i s n e i t h e r any c o n t e n t i o n indication i n the record an A l a b a m a r e s i d e n t . trial modify. ( i n w h i c h we r e a c h e d a court t h a t any p a r t y to this case n o r any remains Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d , t h e c o r r e c t l y dismissed t h e mother's The j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l i s t h e r e f o r e 4 petition affirmed. to 2101139 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 5 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.