Scaife v. Scaife


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-00312-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-24-2004
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Child custody - Jurisdiction - Section 93-23-5(1) - Amendment of answer - M.R.C.P. 12(h)(1) - M.R.C.P. 15(a)(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-10-2003
Appealed from: Monroe County Chancery Court
Judge: Jacqueline Mask
Disposition: ORDER FROM STATE OF WASHINGTON ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
Case Number: 2001-453

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Patricia Scaife




CARTER DOBBS



 

Appellee: Darren Ray Scaife ROBBIE ANN BYERS  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Child custody - Jurisdiction - Section 93-23-5(1) - Amendment of answer - M.R.C.P. 12(h)(1) - M.R.C.P. 15(a)(c)

Summary of the Facts: Darren Scaife and Patricia Scaife were divorced by a final decree of divorce entered in the State of Washington. By agreement of the parties, Darren was awarded custody of the parties’ oldest child, and Patricia was awarded custody of the two younger children. Since the divorce, Patricia and the two younger children have lived in Mississippi. Darren and the older child reside in California. Patricia filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Monroe County to enforce the child custody order and for its modification. Darren, through his attorney, filed an entry of appearance and later filed an answer and counter-complaint seeking custody of the two younger children. Darren was allowed to file an amended answer, asserting as an affirmative defense, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over the minor child who resided in California, and requesting that Patricia’s complaint be dismissed. Patricia was allowed to file an amended complaint requesting an increase in child support for the two minor children over which she exercised sole custody. The chancellor entered an order giving full faith and credit to the Washington court orders and dismissing Patricia’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Patricia appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Patricia argues that the chancellor erred in dismissing her complaint since Darren’s amended answer set out as an affirmative defense that the court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction only as to the minor child and not to himself, that Darren’s failure to assert that the court did not have subject matter or personal jurisdiction over him as an affirmative defense constituted a waiver, and that Darren subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi court by filing responsive documents. Because Mississippi was not the state of origin of this domestic dispute, any authority for disposition of matters of child custody must be found in section 93-23-5(1). Under that statute, the child must be a resident of this state, have a significant contact with this state, or be physically present in this state under exigent circumstances. Here, the child was born in California and has lived there most of his life. Notwithstanding the presence of his mother and siblings in Mississippi, the older child has no connection with Mississippi. Darren properly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the child in his amended complaint. The chancellor’s finding that she lacked jurisdiction over the child rendered the issue of jurisdiction over Darren moot. With leave of court Darren filed an amended answer, which contested jurisdiction. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 12(h)(1) and 15(a)(c), the amended answer, with its contest of jurisdiction, related back to the filing date of the original answer. Since his amended answer related back to his original answer for the purposes of contesting jurisdiction, the documents he filed earlier do not constitute a general appearance.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court