In the Matter of Glenda J. Ball and Frank A. Ball

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the New Hampshire family division had subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to modify the parties’ Massachusetts child support order. The court concluded that applying New Hampshire law to the duration of the support obligation was, at most, a legal error rather than a jurisdictional defect, and that the petitioner waived the error by agreeing to the 2008 stipulation and failing to raise the issue at that time. The court reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. The New Hampshire Family Division had subject matter jurisdiction under RSA 546-B:51, I, because all individual parties resided in New Hampshire and the child did not reside in the issuing state.
2. RSA 546-B:49, III governs the law applicable to aspects of a child-support order that may not be modified under the issuing state's law; it does not limit the New Hampshire court's subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a modification request.
3. Glenda Ball waived any legal error arising from application of New Hampshire law to the duration of the support obligation by entering into the 2008 stipulation and failing to object during the 2008 proceedings.
4. The trial court erred by refusing to terminate the respondent's support obligation for the eldest child as required by the 2008 order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the New Hampshire Family Division had subject matter jurisdiction under UIFSA to modify the Massachusetts child-support order when all individual parties resided in New Hampshire and the children no longer resided in Massachusetts.
2. Whether a New Hampshire court's failure to apply the issuing state's law to a nonmodifiable aspect of a child-support order under RSA 546-B:49, III is a jurisdictional defect that renders the modification order void.
3. Whether Glenda Ball waived any objection to the 2008 modification by entering into the stipulation and failing to raise the alleged choice-of-law error in the 2008 proceedings.
4. Whether the trial court therefore erred in refusing to terminate Frank Ball's support obligation for the eldest child under the 2008 order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded