Opinion ID: 1971691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is This a One-State Proceeding?

Text: It is crucial to recognize that this case does not involve competing orders for child support. Indeed, no such order has yet been issued by this, or any other, jurisdiction. Rather, Ms. Connole filed a request to issue or establish one. Moreover, Mr. DeGroot does not contest the Superior Court's jurisdiction over his person. Thus, this case might properly be analyzed as a one-state proceeding. See Case v. Case, 103 P.3d 171, 175 (Utah Ct.App.2004) (A one-state proceeding occurs when the forum state exercises its long-arm statute to bring the nonresident within the jurisdiction of the forum state, thus eliminating the interstate nature of the action.); LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d at 495 (the multistate provisions of UIFSA have no application when only one state is implicated). As the comment to UIFSA § 202 explains, [a]ssertion of long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident essentially results in a one-state proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the parties reside in different states. With two exceptions, the provisions of UIFSA  labeled an interstate act  are not applicable to such a proceeding. . . . In all other situations, the substantive and procedural law of the forum state applies. UNIF. INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT § 202 cmt. (1996), 9 U.L.A. 335 (2005). [6] Although the commentary just quoted suggests that  with two exceptions [7]  none of the provisions of UIFSA apply to a one-state proceeding, the text of UIFSA § 202 expressly excludes only chapters III through VII. See note 7, supra. This ambiguity is significant because UIFSA § 205, on which appellant principally relies is found in chapter II. Thus, whatever the contours of a one-state proceeding may be, we apparently cannot avoid confronting UIFSA § 205. Furthermore, in Case and LeTellier, the petitioner was a resident of the forum state. We therefore will assume, without deciding, that UIFSA § 205 and the other provisions of UIFSA apply to a case like this which involves residents of two or more states. Even so, appellant has not identified any provision of UIFSA that precludes the Superior Court from issuing a support order in the circumstances presented here.