Title: Roginski v. Estate of Tarvaris Jackson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1200305
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 2021

REL: November 12, 2021
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2021-2022
____________________
1200305
____________________
Jessa Roginski, on behalf of Jaya Jackson, a minor
v.
Estate of Tarvaris Jackson
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-20-900791)
MITCHELL, Justice.
When former NFL quarterback Tarvaris Jackson passed away last
year, he left behind a young daughter named Jaya, to whom he owed child
1200305
support under the terms of a Minnesota court order.  Jaya's mother and
legal representative, Jessa Roginski, commenced an action in the
Montgomery Circuit Court to domesticate the Minnesota support order. 
In response to a motion filed by Jackson's estate, the circuit court entered
an order to strike Roginski's filings, from which she appealed to this
Court.  Because the Court of Civil Appeals has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of appeals in domestic-relations cases, we transfer this appeal
to that court. 
Facts and Procedural History1
 In February 2017, a district court in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
entered an order requiring Jackson to pay $2,112 in child support each
month until Jaya turns 18 years old or graduates high school (whichever
comes later), becomes self-supporting or emancipated, marries, serves in
the military, or dies.  The order also required Jackson to maintain a life-
1In this section, we relate the facts and procedural history that are
necessary to explain our determination that this appeal belongs with the
Court of Civil Appeals.  We omit, as immaterial to that determination,
discussion of events and filings occurring between the filing of the motion
to dismiss by Jackson's estate and the circuit court's ruling on that
motion.  
2
1200305
insurance policy for Jaya's benefit covering the predicted amount of his
total child-support obligation. 
Jackson passed away in April 2020, and his widow opened an estate
("the estate") for him in Montgomery County, where he resided at the time
of his death. On June 17, 2020, Roginski filed a document titled "Notice
of Filing Foreign Judgment" in the circuit court, which stated in relevant
part:
"COMES NOW, Jessa Roginski, on behalf of Jaya Jackson, a
minor, and pursuant to Ala. Code § 30-3D-602, files a certified
copy of an authenticated foreign judgment from the District
Court of Hennepin County in the State of Minnesota.  That on
February 21, 2017, a judgment was entered by the District
Court of Hennepin County against Tarvaris D'Andre Jackson,
deceased, awarding child support payments to Jessa Roginski
for the support of their child, Jaya Jackson, in the amount of
$367,488.00."2
Attached to the notice were a copy of the Minnesota court's child-
support order and an affidavit by Roginski's counsel, which said that
Roginski was seeking "to domesticate the foreign judgment ... in
2According to Roginski, the figure of $367,488 represents Jackson's
monthly child-support obligation of $2,112 multiplied by the 174 months
between his last payment (February 2020) and Jaya's 18th birthday
(August 2034). 
3
1200305
accordance with Ala. Code § 30-3D-602."  Section 30-3D-602, Ala. Code
1975, is part of Alabama's enacted version of the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act ("the UIFSA"), § 30-3D-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
The circuit clerk issued a "Certificate of Judgment" stating that
Roginski had recovered a judgment against the estate in the circuit court
for the sum of $367,488 plus court costs of $246.  The following month, the
estate filed a document titled "Motion to Dismiss, or In the Alternative,
Motion to Strike Filings and Stay Enforcement," in which it argued:
(1) that there was no foreign judgment in the amount of $367,488; (2) that
Roginski's filings did not meet the requirements to domesticate a foreign
judgment under Alabama's enacted version of the Uniform Enforcement
of Foreign Judgments Act ("the UEFJA"), § 6-9-230 et seq., Ala. Code
1975; (3) that Roginski's filings did not meet the requirements to register
a support order under the UIFSA; and (4) that, in the alternative to
dismissal, the court should strike Roginski's filings and stay enforcement
of the child-support order.  
In November 2020, the circuit court ruled on the estate's motion.  Its
order stated that Roginski's filings were "stricken" and that enforcement
4
1200305
of the child-support order was "dismissed without prejudice."  Roginski
moved to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's order.  The court
denied that motion, and Roginski filed a timely notice of appeal to this
Court.
Analysis
This appeal must be transferred to the Court of Civil Appeals under
§ 12-1-4, Ala. Code 1975, which provides in relevant part that, "[w]hen
any case is submitted to the Supreme Court which should have gone to
one of the courts of appeals," the case "must not be dismissed but shall be
transferred to the proper court."  The Court of Civil Appeals has "exclusive
appellate jurisdiction" of "all appeals in domestic relations cases."  § 12-3-
10, Ala. Code 1975.  Because this case is about Roginski's attempt to
enforce the Minnesota child-support order in Alabama, it is a domestic-
relations case, and this appeal falls within the Court of Civil Appeals'
exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
The UIFSA provides a statutory framework for registering out-of-
state family-law support orders for enforcement in Alabama.  See §§ 30-
3D-601 through 604.  Once registered under the UIFSA, an out-of-state
5
1200305
support order "is enforceable in the same manner and is subject to the
same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state," § 30-3D-
603(b), and may be modified by an Alabama court under certain
circumstances, see §§ 30-3D-609 through 614.  Because UIFSA
proceedings concern family-law support orders, they fall within the
category of "domestic relations cases" for purposes of § 12-3-10.  Indeed,
the Court of Civil Appeals has long taken exclusive appellate jurisdiction
of appeals in UIFSA cases.  See, e.g., Davis v. Davis, 317 So. 3d 47 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2020); Hummer v. Loftis, 276 So. 3d 215 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018);
Ex parte Reynolds, 209 So. 3d 1122 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); Williams v.
Williams, 91 So. 3d 56 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012); C.K. v. J.M.S., 931 So. 2d 724
(Ala. Civ. App. 2005); McCarthy v. McCarthy, 785 So. 2d 1138 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2000).
Roginski's original filings in the circuit court expressly invoked § 30-
3D-602, the UIFSA section that sets forth the procedures for registering
an out-of-state support order.  And on appeal, Roginski argues that she
properly registered the Minnesota support order by complying with the
requirements of § 30-3D-602.  To that extent, this appears to be a UIFSA
6
1200305
case, placing it squarely within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Civil Appeals.
The analysis is complicated slightly by the parties' references to the
UEFJA, a separate statute that provides a general framework for the
filing and enforcement of foreign judgments.  See § 6-9-230 et seq.; see
also Pope v. Gordon, 922 So. 2d 893, 897 (Ala. 2005) (explaining that "the
purpose of the UEFJA 'is to give the holder of a foreign judgment the same
rights and remedies as the holders of domestic judgments' " (quoting 30
Am. Jur. 2d Executions and Enforcements of Judgments § 778 (2005)). 
Unlike the UIFSA, the UEFJA is not exclusively or primarily concerned
with domestic-relations orders or any other specialized subject matter. 
Rather, it provides generally for the filing and enforcement of "any
judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other
court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state."   § 6-9-231. 
Under the UEFJA, an authenticated foreign judgment "may be filed in the
office of the clerk of any circuit court of this state," § 6-9-232, subject to
certain procedural requirements set forth in § 6-9-233.  "A judgment so
filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses
7
1200305
and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a
circuit court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner." 
§ 6-9-232.
Here, we have no occasion to consider the overall relationship
between the UEFJA and the UIFSA, or even the substantive applicability
of the UEFJA to this case.  Even if we were to ignore the UIFSA, regard
the Minnesota order as a "foreign judgment" under § 6-9-231, and consider
this case solely as a UEFJA proceeding, the fact would remain that the
foreign judgment Roginski sought to domesticate is a domestic-relations
order.  Thus, any proceeding to reopen, vacate, stay, enforce, or satisfy
that judgment, as contemplated by § 6-9-232, would be a proceeding to
reopen, vacate, stay, enforce, or satisfy a domestic-relations judgment.  By
the same token, any appeal in the case must be an appeal in a domestic-
relations case. 
Cases interpreting the division of appellate jurisdiction between this
Court and the Court of Civil Appeals have generally looked to substance
over mere form.  See Kimberley-Clark Corp. v. Eagleton, 433 So. 2d 452,
454 (Ala. 1983); Ex parte Barnett, 248 So. 3d 981, 985 (Ala. Civ. App.
8
1200305
2017).  In substance, this case is about the enforcement of the Minnesota
child-support order, and that is true no matter which statutory lens we
apply.  We conclude that this is a domestic-relations case, that Roginski's
appeal is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Civil
Appeals, and that it must be transferred to that court under § 12-1-4.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we order this appeal to be transferred to
the Court of Civil Appeals.  Consistent with our conclusion that we lack
appellate jurisdiction in this case, we emphasize that nothing in this
opinion should be read to prejudice any of the parties' procedural or
substantive arguments.
APPEAL TRANSFERRED TO COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur.
9