Pennsylvania Superior Court Cases - Superior Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Superior Court - unoffical reports

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

J-A20001-01
2001 PA Super 364
CATRIONA MARGARET KERR SIMPSON, :
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
n/k/a CATRIONA MCIVOR,
:
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
:
:
v.
:
:
DAVID PATERSON SINCLAIR,
:
Appellee
:
No. 2690 EDA 2000
Appeal from the Order entered August 18, 2000,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Domestic Relations No. 99-11027
BEFORE:
EAKIN, MUSMANNO and TODD, JJ.
OPINION BY EAKIN, J.:
Filed: December 19, 2001
¶ 1
Catriona Margaret Kerr Simpson (Wife) appeals from the order denying
her request to register a Scottish support order. She and David Paterson
Sinclair (Husband) were married June 1, 1995, in Scotland, where she still
resides. She alleges Husband lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
¶ 2
Wife filed a divorce complaint in Philadelphia, but that case was
dismissed on Husband's objections to jurisdiction; essentially, Wife was told
she needed to pursue her action in Scotland, not Pennsylvania. After the
Scottish court entered an order requiring Husband to pay £400 per week,
Wife attempted to register that order in Philadelphia. The trial court
sustained Husband's objections and refused to allow registration; from that
order Wife appeals, raising the following issues:
1.
Did the lower court err when it failed to register a foreign
support order which in all particulars conformed to the
requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. § 7605 and to which no
statutory defense was entered?

J-A20001-01
a.
Did the lower court err when it applied the
jurisdiction requisite for divorce with the jurisdiction
for registration of a valid support order?
b.
Did the lower court err when it failed to follow the
statute which requires that the defendant prove a
defense to registration?
c.
Did the lower court err when it faulted the plaintiff
for failing to provide testimony when the statute
requires that the defendant prove a defense, and
scheduled an argument rather than a hearing, which
forestalled the presentation of testimony?
d.
Did the lower court err when it limited counsel to
argument rather than taking testimony in a hearing
as the statute requires?
e.
Did the lower court err when it relied on collateral
estoppel to deny registration?
f.
Did the lower court's decision run roughshod over
the idea of comity with the courts of the United
Kingdom?
Wife's Brief, at 4.
¶ 3
In reviewing a decision concerning the registration of a foreign support
order, our standard of review is whether the trial court manifestly abused its
discretion or committed an error of law. Stewart v. Stewart, 743 A.2d
955, 956 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted).
¶ 4
Registration of foreign support orders is provided for in Section 7602
of the Divorce Code:
- 2 -

J-A20001-01
(a)
General rule. A support order or income-withholding
order of another state1 may be registered in this State by
sending the following documents and information to the
appropriate tribunal in this State:
(1)
A letter of transmittal to the tribunal requesting
registration and enforcement.
(2)
Two copies, including one certified copy, of the order
to be registered, including any modification of the order.
(3)
A sworn statement by the party seeking registration
or a certified statement by the custodian of the records
showing the amount of any arrearage.
(4)
The name of the obligor and, if known:
(i)
the obligor's address and Social Security
number;
(ii)
the name and address of the obligor's
employer and any other source of
income of the obligor; and
(iii) a description and the location of property
of the obligor in this State not exempt
from execution.
(5)
The name and address of the obligee and, if
applicable, the agency or person to whom support
payments are to be remitted.
(b)
Docketing. On receipt of a request for registration, the
registering tribunal shall file the order as a foreign judgment,

1 Section 7101(b) defines "state" to include a foreign jurisdiction with a law
or procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders which are
substantially similar to Pennsylvania's. The trial court properly notes the
Scottish order falls into this definition. The treaty between the United States
and the United Kingdom known as the Recovery of Maintenance Order 1993,
specifically lists Pennsylvania as having reciprocal enforcement of support.
- 3 -

J-A20001-01
together with one copy of the documents and information,
regardless of their form.
23 Pa.C.S. § 7602.
¶ 5
This Section makes it clear registration is a ministerial act, requiring
the trial court to register the foreign order upon receipt of the specified
documents. 23 Pa.C.S. § 7602(b). The language in Subsection (b) is
mandatory: if a party provides the proper documents, "the registering
tribunal shall file the order as a foreign judgment...." Id. (emphasis added).
¶ 6
The trial court denied Wife's request based on collateral estoppel,
citing the unappealed finding of a lack of jurisdiction in the divorce case.
This was error. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3104 is quite specific: six months' residency is
required for divorce jurisdiction. For registering foreign support orders,
however, six months' residency is not a requirement for jurisdiction. As
such, the issue in the divorce ruling (lack of six months' residency) is not
identical to that presented now, and collateral estoppel does not preclude
jurisdiction.
¶ 7
The learned trial court also erred in placing the burden of proof on
Wife. The Act mandates Wife's order be registered if she included the
documents required in Section 7602; there is nothing in the record to
suggest she did not comply, and the court states she "filed the appropriate
papers." The trial court was then required to notify Husband of the
registration of the order and how he could contest it. 23 Pa.C.S. § 7605(a).
- 4 -

J-A20001-01
¶ 8
It then became Husband's burden to contest the validity of the
registered order. Section 7606 provides:
(a)
ACTION. -- A nonregistering party seeking to contest the
validity or enforcement of a registered order in this State
must request a hearing within 20 days after the date of
mailing or personal service of notice of the registration.
The nonregistering party may seek to vacate the
registration, to assert any defense to an allegation of
noncompliance with the registered order or to contest the
remedies being sought or the amount of any alleged
arrearages pursuant to section 7607 (relating to contest of
registration or enforcement).
(b)
INACTION.-- If the nonregistering party fails to contest the
validity or enforcement of the registered order in a timely
manner, the order is confirmed by operation of law.
23 Pa.C.S. § 7606.
¶ 9
If Husband wished to contest registration, he had the burden of
proving a defense enumerated in Section 7607(a); if he failed to meet that
burden, the trial court would confirm the registered order. 23 Pa.C.S. §
7607(c) provides that "if the contesting party does not establish a defense
under subsection (a) to the validity or enforcement of the order, the
registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order." Once
confirmed, the order is not subject to further attack. 23 Pa.C.S. § 7609.
¶ 10 There is nothing in the Act suggesting it is Wife's burden to prove
jurisdiction; it is Husband's burden to disprove it. As collateral estoppel
does not apply, we must conclude the trial court's refusal to register this
order constitutes an error of law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's
- 5 -

J-A20001-01
order and remand with instructions to register the Scottish support order
pursuant to the Act.
¶ 11 Order reversed; case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
- 6 -