Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01810/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01810-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FILL[) 

PUBLISH 'r( •'.'· ' \ l I'\ I: I • 

. ' '1 • () l . •" ",•, t ! • , • , • I .,, ,, ''1 ',l,.• u I. ,.,Uy 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBEHT L. HOLCKJ:R 

Ckrk 

KAREN A. VAUGHAN; and ZACHARY 

RYAN VAUGHAN, a minor child aged 

two years, by Karen A. Vaughan, 

his natural mother and next friend, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

RANDY SMITHSON, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

GENE SMITHSON; and SANDRA ,SMITHSON, 

Defendants, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1810 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 85-4416-B) 

Submitted on the briefs: 1 

Glenn D. Young, Jr. and Paul S. McCausland, of Gott, Young & 

Bogle, P.A., Wichita, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Fred W. Phelps, Jr. and John R. Balhuizen, of Phelps-Chartered, 

Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

.. 

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 1 
Before MOORE, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

'This action arises out of a nonmarital relationship between 

Karen A. Vaughan (plaintiff) and Randy Smithson (defendant), which 

resulted in the birth of a child. The complaint alleged 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and charged defendant with, 

among other things, breach of a voluntary contract to provide the 

child with material and financial support. Following a trial, a 

.. jury returned a verdict against defendant finding him liable on 

the contract claim. Defendant then filed a motion for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied, and this appeal 

followed·. 

Based on our review of the record on appeal and t~e parties' 

appellate briefs, we believe the decisive issue is whether the 

claim for breach of contract falls within the judicially carved 

domestic relations exception to the diversity jurisdiction. 2 This 

doctrine originated in the dicta of two early Supreme Court cases. 

See Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890) ("[t]he whole 

subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and 

child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of 

the United States"); Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 582, 584 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 Plaintiff 

rejection of 

is limited to 

defendant for 

did not file a cross appeal to challenge the 

her other claims for relief. Therefore, our review 

considering only the judgment entered against 

breach of contract. See Zelinger v. Uvalde Rock 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 2 
(1858) ("[w]e disclaim altogether any jurisdiction in the courts 

of the United States upon the subject of divorce, or for the 

allowance of alimony"). It is now well established that federal 

courts do not have diversity jurisdiction to grant a divorce or 

annulment, determine support payments, or award custody of a 

child. Gonzalez Canevero v. Rexach, 793 F.2d 417, 418 (1st Cir. 

1986); Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982); 

Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 137 (9th Cir. 1982); Sutter v. 

Pitts, 639 F.2d 842, 843 (1st Cir. 1981); Cole v. Cole, 633 F.2d 

1083, 1087-89 (4th Cir. 1980); Solomon v. Solomon, 516 F.2d 1018, 

1021-26 (3d Cir. 1975). 3 

The contemporary rationale for the domestic 

exception is premised on policy considerations. 

relations 

Courts have 

reasoned that: (1) the states have a strong interest in domestic 

relations matters and have developed an expertise in settling 

family disputes; (2) such disputes often require ongoing 

supervision, a task for which the federal courts are not suited; 

(3) federal adjudication of such disputes increases the chances of 

incompatible or duplicative federal and state court decrees; and 

(4) such cases serve no particular federal interest, while they 

crowd the federal court docket. Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895, 

Asphalt Co., 316 F.2d 47, 53-54 (10th Cir. 1963). 

3 Since this case is based only on federal diversity 

jurisdiction, we have no occasion to determine the applicability 

of the domestic relations exception in the context of any other 

source of federal jurisdiction. See Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 

368, 370-72 (11th Cir. 1988) (discussing the varying approaches 

taken by other circuits to determine whether the domestic 

relations exception applies to cases brought under the federal 

question statute). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 3 
899-900 (5th Cir. 1987); Ruffalo v. Civiletti, 702 F.2d 710, 717 

(8th Cir. 1983). 

In this case defendant has argued in support of his motion 

for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, on appeal, that the 

domestic relations exception reaches the contract claim because 

the relief sought and awarded by the jury for breach of the 

contract was, in essence, child support, which is one of the 

traditional domestic relations remedies fashioned in state court 

systems. Plaintiff's position, agreed with by the district court, 

is that her contract claim is unrelated to domestic relations 

issues because she did not overtly seek a distinctive domestic 

relations remedy provided by state courts but only sought to 

enforce contract rights given to her by defendant. According to 

plaintiff, the relief awarded by the jury for breach of the 

contract is independent of 

enforcement 

any 

of 

traditional domestic relations 

remedy, such as a parent's duty to 

provide support for a child born out of 

statutory 

wedlock, which is 

available in state court. 

The weakness in plaintiff's argument is that it focuses only 

on how her claim was phrased. Stating a claim in terms of 

contract or tort does not determine whether it falls outside the 

domestic relations exception. The proper inquiry focuses on the 

type of determination the federal court must make in order to 

resolve the claim. If the federal court is called upon to decide 

those issues regularly decided in state court (domestic relations 

actions such as divorce, alimony, child custody, or the support 

obligations of a spouse or parent), then the domestic relations 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 4 
exception is applicable. Compare Rykers, 832 F.2d at 899-900 

(domestic relations exception bars husband's tort claims against 

his alleged common law wife arising out of his arrest for 

allegedly kidnapping the couple's child because the claims 

required determination of the husband and wife's respective rights 

to custody of the child); and Bennett, 682 F.2d at 1042-44 

(domestic relations exception precludes granting injunction 

setting future custody and visitation rights in tort action 

brought by father against former wife for allegedly kidnapping 

their child), with McIntyre v. McIntyre, 771 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (domestic relations exc~ption does not apply to claim 

alleging past breach of visitation rights granted by state court 

because claim did n9t require determination of spousal or parental 

status);. Cole, 633 F.2d at 1087-89 (domestic relations exception 

did not ·bar husband'.s tort claims against former wife for arson, 

conversion, and malicious prosecution because determination of 

case would not require the court to adjust family status or 

establish duties). 

Under this analysis, plaintiff's claim, while framed in the 

terms of contract, is nevertheless barred by the domestic 

relations exception. Resolution of the claim required the 

district court to consider evidence of the person~l needs and 

finances of a child and make a subjective and equitable decision 

on the level of support a father was required to furnish his 

child. This is the same type of determination made in state court 

domestic relations actions. State courts, with their relative 

expertness in domestic relations matters, are better suited for 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 5 
this task. Furthermore, plaintiff's contract claim raises the 

issue of whether or not any traditional domestic relations remedy 

available in state court, such as enforcement of a statutory duty 

to provide support for a child, is implicitly relinquished by 

plaintiff or otherwise affected. In order to avoid the risk of 

incompatible state and federal court decrees and the piecemeal 

handling of what is substantially a single controversy, plaintiff 

should pursue both the contract claim and any other domestic 

relations remedy in a state court system. 

Plaintiff's reliance on cases which have found the domestic 

relations exception inapplic~ble to diversity actions based on 

breach of a voluntary separation agreement entered into years 

after the p~rties had divorced, see Crouch v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 486 

(5th Cir. 1978), and breach of property and ~eparation agreements 

incorporated in divorce decrees is misplaced. See Turpin v. 

Turpin, 415 F. Supp. 12· (W.D. Okla. 1975); Richie v. Richie, 186 

F. Supp. 592 (E.D.N.Y. 1960). In these cases the federal courts 

were only called upon to enforce liquidated obligations after a 

state court had entered a divorce decree. The federal courts were 

not required, as in this case, to determine in the first instance 

issues regularly decided in state court domestic relations 

actions. Furthermore, there was no potential for inconsistent 

state and federal decrees. Thus, none of the rationales for the 

domestic relations exception were implicated. 

Accordingly, the district court's judgment entered following 

the jury verdict is VACATED and the cause REMANDED with directions 

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 6 
ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CLERK 

;Jlinitco jtates Qlourt of J\ppeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER, COLORADO 80294 

August 29, 1989 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: No. 87-1810 - Vaughn v. Smithson 

Filed August 21, 1989 

TELEPHONE 

(303) 844·3157 

(FTS) 564·3157 

The Court has maqe the following correction in the captioned 

opinion: 

Page 4, last paragraph, last sentence: 

Delete parenthetical marks before "domestic" and 

after "parent). 

The sentence, after correction, should read: 

If the federal court is called upon to decide those issues 

regularly decided in state court domestic relations 

actions such as divorce, alimony, child custody, or the 

supporb obligations of a spouse or parent, then ... 

Very truly yours, 

ROBT > 'HO~~· 

B • ,,1i,~~dl )I} y • I , V . •.I 

Patrick Fisher 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Clerk 

L '--

Appellate Case: 87-1810 Document: 01019844387 Date Filed: 08/23/1989 Page: 7