appellant`s first amended brief with request for oral argument

5th Court of Appeals
FILED: 01/19/2012
14:00
Lisa Matz, Clerk
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT, AT DALLAS, TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 05-11-01396-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF P.D.K., A CHILD
From the 429th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
No. 429-56355-2010
APPELLANT'S FIRST AMENDED BRIEF
''
.)
WITH REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
{'"")
>' )
~1t'•
. -:'""'!
•
.
' J
-~--<
,,,
··~~
~-
1
···-
Identity of Parties and Counsel
Appellant
Name: Peter Klamka
Lead counsel: John Denke, Esq.
State Bar no.: 24055394
Law Firm: Law Office of John Denke
Address:
4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200, Dallas, TX, 75206
Phone: (469) 328-1653
Fax: (972) 422-7868
Posture in trial court: Respondent
Appellee
Name: Shondela Morton
Lead counsel: Rebecca L. Armstrong
State Bar no.: 24062589
Law firm: Koons Fuller
Address:
5700 West Plano Parkway, Suite 2200, Plano, TX, 75093
Phone: (972) 769-2727
Fax: (972) 769-0313
Posture in trial court: Petitioner
2
Table ofContents
Identity of Parties and Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
Table of Contents ............................................................ 3
Index of Authorities ......................................................... 4
Statement of the Case ........................................................ 5
Oral Argument ................................................................ 5
Issues Presented ............................................................... 5
Statement ofthe Facts ....................................................... 5-7
Summary ofthe Argument .................................................. 7
Argument ...................................................................... 7-14
1. Whether the lower court had personal jurisdiction over the appellant?
2. Whether the appellee improperly registered the Michigan court's child support order?
3. Whether the appellee adequately put the appellant on notice of the child support order
he was in contempt of?
Prayer .......................................................................... 14
Certificate of Service ........................................................ 15
Appendix ...................................................................... 16-63
3
Index ofAuthorities
Cases
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 719 S.W.2d 224, 228 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ
dismissed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319, 327 (Tex. 1998) ........................................... 9
Ex Parte Arnold, 926 S.W.2d 622, 623-624 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 1996, original
proceeding) ................................................................................................... 13
In re Broussard, 112 S.W.3d 827, 834 (Tex. App.- Houston [141h Dist.] 2003, original
proceeding) ................................................................................................... 13
In re S.A. V, 837 S.W.2d 80,85 (Tex. 1992) ........................................................ 10, 11
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945) .................................. 9
Statutes
Texas Family Code 3 102.011(b) .................................................................... 7-8
Texas Family Code 3 157.002(b)(2), (a)(2) ........................................................... 13
Texas Family Code 3 159.607(a)(8), (b) ............................................................. 12
4
Statement of the Case
This case was a motion for enforcement of a child support order (C.R. 169 - 176).
Appellant filed a special appearance, request to vacate registration, request for hearing, and first
amended answer (C.R. 177- 184). Appellant also filed a first supplemental request to vacate
registration and request for hearing (C.R. 226- 241). The appellant filed an answer to motion
for enforcement of child support order (C.R. 242 - 243).
The appellant also filed special
exceptions (C.R. 244- 245). The trial court rendered an order holding appellant in contempt for
failure to pay child support, granting judgment, and for commitment to county jail (C.R. 274283 ). The motion to enforce was granted and judgment for child support arrearages was granted
in the amount of$40,588.21 through a bench trial (!d.).
Oral Argument
Oral argument would aid the court in deciding this appeal in that there are references to
multiple orders in this case and that the court could benefit from the explanations of counsel in
regards to their timeline and significance. In addition, there are jurisdictional issues that the
court would benefit from hearing about along with special exceptions which were not adequately
addressed by the lower court.
Issues Presented
1. Whether the lower court had personal jurisdiction over the appellant?
2. Whether the appellee improperly registered the Michigan court's child support order?
3. Whether the appellee adequately put the appellant on notice of the child support order
he was in contempt of?
Statement ofFacts
5
The parties filed for divorce in Michigan and an interim order for parenting time and
support was issued on October 6, 2008 (C.R. 226). On April 7, 2009, a child support order was
issued which provides for a final determination of child support to be made at a later date and
applied retroactively back to October 1, 2008 (C.R. 226). On May 3, 2011, the Michigan court
held that the Appellant was behind in child support of an alleged $85,000 and under an
obligation to pay $3,600 in child support. (C.R. 237-238). On July 26, 2011, the Michigan court
determined Appellant's current arrearages were $36,988.21 and current child support obligation
was $3,600 a month (C.R. 239-240). The Michigan court determined that, although it did not
have jurisdiction to modify the child support obligation, it did still have jurisdiction to enforce it
(C.R. 240-241). The parties were divorced in Michigan on September 25, 2009 (C.R. 46). A
separate trial on child related issues was held in January 2010 (C.R. 46). The Michigan court did
not make a determination and reserved it to a later date (C.R. 82).
Before a custody
determination was made, the court was advised that Appellant had moved to New York on
October 4, 2010 (C.R. 82). Thus, Michigan court lost jurisdiction as neither party nor the child
lived in Michigan anymore (C.R. 82). The Michigan Court dismissed the custody and visitation
portion of the SAPCR finding it lost subject matter jurisdiction (C.R. 227). Thereafter,
Appellant filed for an emergency custody determination in New York State on December 21,
2010 (C.R. 83). Appellee filed a petition to establish the parent-child relationship in Texas on
December 22,2010 (C.R. 83). On February 25,2011, the Texas court entered an order granting
Respondent's Special Appearance (C.R. 227). On March 7, 2011, the Texas court determined it
did not need personal jurisdiction over the Appellant to make a child custody determination, but
that the New York court needed to decide if it had jurisdiction over the case (C.R. 120). The
6
motion for enforcement was filed on August 18, 2011 (C.R. 169).
Summary ofthe Argument
First, the lower court never had personal jurisdiction over the appellant as he was not
amenable to service of process in the State ofTexas. He was a resident ofNew York State at the
time of service, and had no connection to the State ofT exas. The mere fact that the appellee
lived there with their son was not enough of a connection to subject him to the personal
jurisdiction of the State of Texas. Next, the appellee registered an order ofthe Michigan court
which was not the controlling order in the Michigan case. Rather, appellee registered an order
regarding plaintiffs motion for child support credit and requiring immediate resumption of
payment in accord with the existing child support order. Registration of the improper order
should result in vacation of registration. Last, the motion to enforce filed by the appellee in the
lower court was not sufficient to notify the appellant of the order being enforced against him as
the motion to enforce simply referenced an attached exhibit as the order to be enforced, without
citing the specific provision that was to be enforced. To give sufficient notice, the movant must
recite the specific provision violated, where an exhibit can only be attached to show the date and
manner of noncompliance.
Argument
First the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the appellant to hear a motion to
enforce child support. Under Texas Family Code 3 102.011(b), a court can acquire personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident if (1) the person is personally served with citation in this state, (2)
the person submits to the jurisdiction of this state, by entering a general appearance, or by filing
a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction, (3) the
7
child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the person, (4) the person resided
with the child in this state, (5) the person resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or
support for the child, (6) the person engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may
have been conceived by that act of intercourse, (7) the person, as provided by Chapter 160: (A)
registered with the paternity registry maintained by the bureau of vital statistics; or (B) signed an
acknowledgment of paternity of a child born in this state; or (8) there is any basis consistent with
the constitutions ofthis state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Texas Family Code 3 102.011.
To begin, the appellant was never served with citation personally in this state. According
to the motion to enforce, process should be served at 106 Central Park S, Apt G, New York, New
York 10019, or wherever he may be found (C.R. 169). In addition, appellant filed a special
appearance contesting the personal jurisdiction of the Texas courts (C.R. 177). In fact, appellant
filed an affidavit with his special appearance stating he was not served with citation in the State
of Texas (C.R. 183). Thus, it can be said that appellant was never personally served with citation
for the motion to enforce in Texas. Also, appellant did not consent to jurisdiction by entering a
general appearance, seeking affirmative relief, or otherwise waiving any contest to personal
jurisdiction. As can be seen from the trial record, appellant filed a special appearance with an
affidavit supporting the lack of personal jurisdiction over him (C.R. 177-184). Next, nothing the
appellant did caused the child to live in Texas. According to appellant's affidavit, the child
resides in Texas as a direct result ofthe acts ofthe Petitioner, Shon Morton (C.R. 183). It goes
on to say that respondent did not concede, and in fact objected to Shon Gables moving with the
child to the State of Texas (C.R. 183). We can see from this that appellant did not cause the
8
child to live in Texas as it was the actions of the appellee that resulted in this happening. Then,
the appellant never lived in Texas with the child. This is supported by the affidavit where the
appellant states I have never resided with Peter Dillon Klamka in the State ofTexas (C.R. 183).
This weighs in on the next factor where an individual who lived in Texas and provided support is
amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court. Again, appellant states in his affidavit that he
has never resided in the State of Texas with Peter Dillon Klamka (C.R. 183). Appellant only
stayed in hotels and motels with the child periodically, but never established a residence with the
child in Texas (C.R. 183). Appellant also did not conceive the child in Texas as stated in his
affidavit (C.R. 184). Appellant did not register paternity with the Bureau of Vital Statistics
according to his affidavit ( C.R. 184). A signed acknowledgment was also not done as appellant
stated in his affidavit that he has not asserted parentage in the paternity registry maintained in
Texas by the Bureau of Vital Statistics (C.R. 184).
The last method of asserting personal jurisdiction over the appellant would be if he was
subject to jurisdiction under the U.S. or Texas Constitution. There has to be minimum contacts
between the respondent and the forum state for the exercise of personal jurisdiction to hold
Constitutional muster. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945).
Specifically, there must be evidence that the individual has purposefully availed herself of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and
protection of its laws. !d. For example, one spouse acting alone cannot create the contacts
between Texas and the nomesident spouse that are necessary for personal jurisdiction in a
divorce action. Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319, 327 (Tex. 1998). A court can assert
general jurisdiction over a nomesident if there contacts with the forum state are continuous and
9
systematic enough to permit the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident ever..
though the cause of action asserted does not arise from the nonresident's contacts with the state.
In Re SA. V, 837 S.W.2d 80, 85 (Tex. 1992). The nonresident father's frequent trips to Texas to
visit the children and to pursue employment opportunities gave the court general jurisdiction. !d.
at 86-87.
In the instant case, appellant is a resident ofNew York who does not nor has ever
maintained a residence in the State of Texas (C.R. 183). The only connection he has to Texas is
the fact that the appellee mother moved to Texas with the child as a result of the acts of the
appellee mother (!d.). The only times appellant came to Texas was to visit the child periodically
(!d.). He never came to this state to look for employment according to the record (!d.). He
would have no connection to Texas whatsoever if his son did not live here, which is his only
connection to this State. His period visits to this state to see his son are not enough of a
connection to Texas for the court to assert general personal jurisdiction over him.
Specific jurisdiction is established when the cause of action being asserted arises from or
relates to the nonresident's contact with the forum state. In Re SA. V, 837 S.W.2d at 85. The
following contact was not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction: the father was married and
lived in Texas for three years, moved out of state, and divorced, the mother and the children
moved back to Texas, and the father made one trip to Texas to see the children. Cunningham v.
Cunningham, 719 S.W.2d 224, 228 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ dismissed). Here, the
nonresident appellant never lived in Texas, and only visited the child periodically in hotel and
motel rooms (C.R. 183). In addition, the cause of action, a child support suit, did not arise from
his contacts with Texas in that he did not cause the child or the mother to live here, did not
10
conceive the child here, did not live in Texas with the child, or ever live in Texas himself (!d.).
All this defeats the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident appellant.
Only if the court determines that the nonresident purposefully established minimum
contacts with the forum state are the contacts evaluated in light of other factors to determine
whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. In
re S.A. V, 837 S.W.2d at 85. These factors include (1) the burden on the nonresident respondent,
(2) the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the petitioner's interest in
obtaining convenient and effective relief, (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining
the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of all the states in
furthering fundamental substantive social policies. !d. at 86. Even if there were minimum
contacts between the nonresident appellant the Texas, which there certainly are not, the burden
on him having to defend this suit in Texas are great as he is a resident of New York State and has
to make a trip down here every time there is a proceeding in this case (C.R. 183). As far as the
interests of the forum state in adjudicating the dispute, the child and the mother do live in Texas,
but this was brought about through no fault or action ofthe nonresident appellant. If this factor
was to force the nonresident to defend a suit here in Texas, the appellee mother could move to
any state and force him to defend an action there. This goes to the next factor of the petitioner's
interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. It certainly is more convenient for the
petitioner to file suit in the state where she resides, but this completely ignores the fact of the
respondent's residence and connection with the forum state. Again, appellant would be forced to
defend a suit in any state that the appellee decides to move to if he was held to be subject to the
personal jurisdiction of any state's court system. As for the interstate judicial system's interest in
11
obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, it seems only fair for the appellee mother
to sue the appellant in his state of residence in order to obtain a judgment against him for child
support as that is the only place where personal jurisdiction can be asserted over him. Every
other case involving child support has to be done this way, and there is no reason why appellee
should be granted an exception to this general and well known rule. Last, for the shared interest
of all the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies, the fundamental policy is to
enforce the law of the states and those laws force the appellee to file suit where the nonresident
lives as that is the only place personal jurisdiction can be maintained over him. Nothing can
avoid this obligation, including moving to a forum state and suing a nonresident who has no
connection with that forum state.
Next, appellee registered the incorrect foreign child support order which would require
vacation of that order. According to the reporter's record, the appellee registered the July 26,
2011 order seeking confirmation of it in the trial court. (R.R. 6). There were four relevant
orders from the Michigan court (C.R. 231-241 ). A party contesting the validity or enforcement
of a registered order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more
of the following defenses: ... (8) the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order. Texas
Family Code 3 159.607(a)(8). If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense
under subsection (a), a tribunal may stay enforcement of the registered order, continue the
proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other appropriate
orders. Texas Family Code 3 159.607(b). Here, the July 26, 2011 order registered by the
appellee is not the controlling order in the Michigan courts as it simply references the existing
child support order in its heading and in its body (C.R. 239-240). The controlling order is in fact
12
the April 6, 2009 order which reduces child support to $3,600 a month for appellant (C.R. 236).
The tint order after that is on May 3, 2011, and it references the governing child support order as
the one effective April 1, 2009 which ordered appellant to pay $3,600 a month to appellee (C.R.
238). In addition, under the July 26, 2011 order the Michigan court states "that Mr. Klamka's
monthly child support obligation continues to be $3,600 per month under this court's extant child
support order" (C.R. 240). So, both later orders reference the controlling order as the April6,
2009 order which obligated appellant to pay appellee $3,600 a month in child support. This
April 6, 2009 order is the proper order to register, and appellee registered the incorrect order in
the trial court, which the trial court improperly confirmed.
Last, the appellee did not state with specificity the provision that the appellant was in
violation of in her motion to enforce child support (C.R. 170). The motion must include the
portions of the child-support order that were allegedly violated. Texas Family Code 3
157 .002(b)(2). To meet this pleading requirement, the movant can recite verbatim in the motion
the provisions that were violated. Ex Parte Arnold, 926 S.W.2d 622, 623-624 (Tex. App.Beaumont 1996, original proceeding). The motion must also state the date and manner of the
obligor's noncompliance. Texas Family Code 3 157.002(a)(2), (b)(2). For each act of contempt
alleged, the motion must include the date the payment was due, the amount that was due, any
amount that was paid, and the date payment was made. !d. This information can be provided in
an exhibit attached to the motion. In re Broussard, 112 S.W.3d 827, 834 (Tex. App.- Houston
[14th Dist.] 2003, original proceeding). As can be seen from the previous authority, the motion
must cite the particular provision that was violated by the obligor. One way of doing this is by
reciting verbatim the particular provision. In appellee's motion, she simply referenced the order
13
by way of exhibit (C.R. 170). An exhibit is sufficient for the purposes of showing nonpayment
such as a list of payments made or not made through the Texas State Child Disbursement Unit,
but in order to put the appellant on proper notice of the provision he is in violation of, there must
be some discussion of that particular provision, even if it is not recited verbatim. Here, the
movant simply pointed to the prior order, without informing the appellant what provisions he
violated. This was not sufficient notice to the appellant of the provisions he was in violation of,
and the movant should have been ordered to amend her motion to make it more specific and
inform the appellant of the sections of the order he violated.
Prayer
First, for the lack of personal jurisdiction, appellee case should be dismissed and she
should be ordered to file her enforcement proceeding in New York State as that is where she will
be able to obtain personal jurisdiction over the nonresident appellant. Next, registration should
be vacated as the appellee registered the improper order. Last, appellee should be ordered to
amend her motion for enforcement, when she refiles in New York, to particularly state the
provisions of the Michigan order that appellant has violated.
Respectfully submitted,
~e,Esq.
TSBN 24055394
4925 Greenville Avenue
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75206
Ph. 469-328-1653
Fax. 972-422-7868
Attorney for Appellant
14
Certificate of Service
The undersigned counsel certifies that this brief has been served by facsimile on appellee,
Shondela Morton, through appellee's attorney of record, Rebecca Armstrong, on this the 18th day
of January, 2012.
15
Appendix
Texas Family Code § 102.011. ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENT.
The court may exercise status or subject matter jurisdiction over
the suit as provided by Chapter 152.
(b)
The court may also exercise personal jurisdiction over a
person on whom service of citation is required or over the person's
personal representative, although the person is not a resident or
domiciliary of this state, if:
(l)
the person ls personally served with citation in
(2)
the person submits to the jurisdiction of this
this state;
state by consent, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a
responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to
personal jurisdiction;
(3)
the child resides in this state as a result of the
acts or directives of the person;
( 4)
the person resided with the child in this state;
(5)
the person resided in this state and provided
prenatal expenses or support for the child;
(6)
the person engaged in sexual intercourse in this
state and the child may have been conceived by that act of
intercourse;
(7)
the person registered with the paternity registry
maintained by the bureau of vital statistics as provided by Chapter
160;
16
or
(a)
(8)
there is any basis consistent with the
constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise
of
th~
personal jurisdiction.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 561, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.
Texas Family Code§ 157.002. CONTENTS OF MOTION.
(a) A motion for
enforcement must, in ordinary and concise language:
(1)
identify the provision of the order allegedly
violated and sought to be enforced;
(2)
state the manner of the respondent's alleged
( 3)
state the relief requested by the movant;
(4)
contain the signature of the movant or the movant's
noncompliance;
and
attorney.
(b)
A motion for enforcement of child support:
(1)
must include the amount owed as provided in the
order, the amount paid, and the amount of arrearages;
(2)
if contempt is requested, must include the portion
of the order allegedly violated and, for each date of alleged
contempt, the amount due and the amount paid, if any;
(3)
may include as an attachment a copy of a record of
child support payments maintained by the Title IV-D registry or a
local registry;
17
and
(4)
if the obligor owes arrearages for a child
receiving assistance under Part A of Title IV of the federal Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq.), may include a request
that:
(A)
the obligor pay the arrearages in accordance
with a plan approved by the court;
(B)
or
if the obligor is already subject to a plan
and is not incapacitated, the obligor participate in work
activities, as defined under 42 U.S.C. Section 607(d), that the
court determines appropriate.
(c)
A motion for enforcement of the terms and conditions of
conservatorship or possession of or access to a child must include
the date, place, and, if applicable, the time of each occasion of
the respondent's failure to comply with the order.
(d)
The movant is not required to plead that the underlying
order is enforceable by contempt to obtain other appropriate
enforcement remedies.
(e)
The movant may allege repeated past violations of the
order and that future violations of a similar nature may occur
before the date of the hearing.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20,
§
&uended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 911,
1, eff. April 20, 1995.
§
17, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.
Texas Family Code
18
§
159.607. CONTEST OF REGISTRATION OR ENFORCEMENT.
(a) A
party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order
or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one
or more of the following defenses:
(1)
the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction
over the contesting party;
(2)
the order was obtained by fraud;
(3)
the order has been vacated, suspended, or modified
by a later order;
(4)
the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending
(5)
there is a defense under the law of this state to
appeal;
the remedy sought;
(6)
full or partial payment has been made;
(7)
the statute of limitation under Section 159.604
precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages;
(8)
or
the alleged controlling order is not the
controlling order.
(b)
If a party presents evidence establishing a full or
partial defense under Subsection (a), a tribunal may stay
enforcement of the registered order, continue the proceeding to
permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other
appropriate orders.
An uncontested portion of the registered order
may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this
state.
(c)
If the contesting party does not establish a defense
under Subsection (a) to the validity or enforcement of the order,
19
the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20,
§
1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1247,
2003.
20
§
36, eff. Sept. 1,
91271201111:11 AM Scanned
NO. 419-S63SS-2010
IN THE INTEREST OF
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PETER DILLON KLAMKA
§
§
419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
A CHILD
§
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER HOLDING RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT FOR FAD..URE TO PAY CHU..D
SUPPORT, GRANTING JUDGMENT, AND FOR COMMITMENT TO COUNTY JAlL
On September 26, 2011, the Court heard Movant's Motion for Enforcement of Child
Support Order.
Appearances
Movant, Sbondela Morton, appeared in person and throu&b ·att~~ ·of record, Rebecca
..
.. :
L. Armstrong, and announced ready for trial.
Respondent, Peter Klamka, appeared in person and through attorney of record, Daryl
Gordan, and announced ready for trial.
Jurisdiction
The Court, after examining the record and the evidence
and ar~ent 'Of counsel, finds
All. persons entitled to
that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this caSe.
citation were properly cited.
Record
The record of testimony was duly reported by the court reporter for 429th Judicial
.,
District Court.
Jury
A jury was waived, and all questions of fact and of law were submitted to the Court.
Findings
·'
ORDER HOLDING R.f!SPONDBNT IN CONTEMPT FOR FAlLURE TO PAY
CHILD SUPPORT, GRANTING JUDGMENT, .AND FOR COMMITM.EN"f TO COUNTY JAIL
PAGEl
The Court finds that on July 26, 2011, Respondent was ordered to make periodic
payments of child support. in an order in Case No. 09-650-DM, styled "Peter C. K.lamka,
Plaintiff v. Shondella Morton, Defendant," in the 22• Judicial Circuit Family DiviSion of the
State of Michigan, thi.t appears in the minutes of the Court and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and is fully incorporated herein by all references and states in relevant part as follows:
"The Court also finds that Mr. K.lamka's monthly child support obligation continues to be
$3,600 per month under this Court's extant child support order, and that the has not paid in
accord with that order sinoe October 20 I 0, at which time he made only partial payment
Accordingly, as of June 29, 2011, Mr. Klamka's arrearages were $33,367.21, with some $28,800
(exclusive of fees) incurred from November 1, 2010 onward. As oftoday's date, the arrearges
total $36,988.21 of which $32,421 (including fees) bas been incurred since November 1, 2010,
with another $3,600 due as of August 1, 2011."
The Court further finds that Respondent has failed to comply with the provisions of the
order as follows.
Contempt Findings and Findings on Arrearages
The Court finds that Respondent has failed to pay child support as ordered to Shondela
Morton in the amounts and on the dates shown below:
Violation
Date Due
Date Paid
Amount Due
Amount Paid
1.
8/1/2011
7/26/2011
None
None
$ 3,600.00
$36,988.21
$0.00
$0.00
2.
The Court finds that Respondent was able to pay child support in the amounts and on the
dates ordered as set out above and that Respondent is guilty of a separate act of contempt for
each such separate failure to pay child support in the amounts ordered. The Court further finds
ORDER HOLDING REsPONDENT IN CONTEMl'f FOR FAIUJRE TO PAY
CHILD SUPPORT, GRANTING JUDGMENT, AND FOR COMMRMENT TO COUNTY JAIL;
PAGE2
.
that on the day of this hearing Respondent has the ability to comply with the order of the Court
by paying the child support arrearages set forth in violations 1-2 emnnerated above.
The Court finds and confinns that the balance owed by Respondent on previously
confinned child support arrearages is $36,988.21. The Court further finds and confinns that
Respondent is in arrears in the amount of $3,600.00 for the period of August 1, 2011. Judgment
should be awarded against Respondent in the total amount of $40.588.21 for the arrearages.
The Court further finds that attorney's fees, expenses, and costs
'n the amount of
$1,800.00 should be assessed against Respondent
The Court further finds that, at the time the motion requesting wi'tbholding from earnings
for child support was filed, Respondent had been in arrears for an amount·due .for more than
..
thirty days and the amoW1t of the arrearages was an amount equal to or greB:ter than that due for a
one-month period.
The Court further finds that all arrearages amounts should be withheld from Respondent's
earnings.
Relief Granted
IT IS ADJUDGED that Respondent, Peter K1amka, is in conte.mpt
~or
each sq>arate
violation enumerated above.
Criminal Contempt
IT IS ORDERED that punishment for each separate violation is assessed at a fme of five
hundred dollars ($500.00) and confinement in the county jail of Collin COunty. Texas. for a
period of180 days.
IT IS TIIEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent is committed to the county jail of
Collin County. Texas. for a period of 180 days for the violations enumerated above.
ORDER HOLDING REsPONDENT IN CONTEMFr FOil FAD..lJRJ! TO PAY
CHilD SUI'I'ORT, GMNTJNO IUDOMSNT, AND FOR COMMITMENT TO COUN1Y JAIL
PAGEJ
IT IS ORDERED that each period of confinement assessed in this order shall ron and be
satisfied concurrently.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent not be given good
cond~ct
time credit for
time spent in the comrty jail.
Civil Contempt
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent, Peter Klamka, shall be confined in the cmmty jail of
Collin County, Texas, until Respondent has complied with the following orders. IT IS
ORDERED that Respondent.
'
1.
pay three thousand six hundred dollars (}.600.00), through the Texas Child
Support Disbursement Unit, as child support arrearage (including any acct1Jed interest); 1llld
2.
pay thirty six fuousand nine hundred eighty eight dolla.rS and twenty one cents
(36,98&21), through the Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit, as child support arrearage
(including any accrued interest)
·
·
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent not be given good conduct time credit for
time spent in the county jail.
Judgment
lT IS ORDERED that Shondela Morton is granted a cumulative judgment for child
support arrearages, against Respondent of forty~thousand-five-hundred-eigh.ty-eight dolJars and
twenty-one cents (UO.S88.21), such judgment bearing interest at 6 percent simple interest per
year from the date this order is signed, for which let execution issue.
This judgment is
cumulative and includes the unpaid balance owed under the prior order in Case No.
09~650-DM,
styled "Peter C. Klamka, Plaintiffv. Sbondella Morton, Defendant," in the 221¥1 .Judicial Circuit
Family Division of the State ofMichigan, dated July 11,2011.
Attorney's Fees
.
IT IS ORDERED that judgment is awarded to Rebecca L. Annstrong
.
in the· amount
of
.
.
one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00) for attorney's f~, expenses,
·and costs, with
interest at 6% percent per year· compounded annually from the date the judgment is signed until
PAG'E4
paid.
The judgment, for which let execution issue, is awar~ed against P~ .Klamka.
Respondent, and Respondent is ORDERED to pay those fees, expenses, costs, and interest, by
cash, cashier's check, or money order, directly to Rebecca L. Armstrong at 5700 W. Plano
Parkway, Suite 2200, Plano, TX 75093 on or before 5:00p.m. on OclDber 17, 2011. Rebecca L.
Armstrong may enforce this judgment for fees, expenses, and costs in the attorney's own name
by any means available for the enforcement of child support, including contempt.
Order for Withholding and Credit for Amounts Withheld
IT IS ORDERED that all axrearages emnnerated above shall be payable through a
withholding from earnings for child support.
IT IS ORDERED that all attorney's fees and costs awarded i~ this ordef·shalibe payable
through a withholding from earnings for costs and fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the withholding from earnings for child support and
the withholding from earnings for costs and fees shall be binding on Respondent's ·present
employer and all subsequent employers.
On this date the Court authorized the issuance of an Order/Notice to Withhold Income for
Child Support and an Order to Withhold Income for Costs and Fees; ~e amounts to bC withheld
from Respondent's disposable earnings are stated in that Order/Notice to Withhold Income for
Child Support and that Order to Withhold Income for Costs and Fees, which are wholly
incorporated by reference into this order.
Any employer of Respondent is ORDERED to begin withholding no .later than the first
pay period following the date on which the Order/Notice to Withhold_ Income for Child Support
and the Order to Withhold Jncome for Costs and Fees are served on the employer. The employer
is ORDERED to continue to withhold income as long as Respondent remains in employment and
ORDER. HOLDING RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT FORFAI1.URE. TOP AY
CHILD SUPI'ORT, GRANTING JUOO.."d.ENT, AND FOR COMMITMENT TO COUNTY JAIL
PAGES
child support and attorney's fees and costs are due and payable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all amounts withheld from the disposable earnings of
Respondent by the employer and paid in accordance with the order shall constitute ·~ credit
against the child support obligation, attorney's fees. and costs. Payment of the full amount of
child support, attorney's fees, and costs ordered paid by any prior order and by this order through
this withholding from earnings shall discharge the child support obligation,, attorney's fees, and
costs. If the amount withheld from earnings and credited against the child support obligation,
attorney's fees, and costs is less than 100 percent of the amount ordered to be pai~ by that prior
court order and by this order, the balance due remains an obligat.ion of Respondent, and it is
ORDERED that Respondent pay the balance due directly to the state disbursement unit specified
below.
Payment ofChild Support and Child Support Arrearages
IT IS ORDERED that all payments of child support shall ·.·
be ·made . through the state
disbursement unit at Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit, P. 0. Box 659791, San Antonio,
Texas
78265~9791,
and thereafter promptly remitted to Shondela Morton for the suppOrt of the
child.
Payment ofAttorney's Fees and Cost.,
IT IS ORDERED that all payments of attorney's fees and costs shall be made directly to
Rebecca L. Armstrong.
Change ofEmployment
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent and the employer shall notify this Co:urt and Movant
by u.s. certified mail, return receipt requested, of any change of ad~s and
o: any
t~ination
of employment. This notice shall be given no later than seven days after the change of address
ORDER HOLDING REsPONDENT lN CONT.EMJ"f FOR FAR.UR£ TO PAY
CHilD SUPPORT, GRANTING 1UOOMENT, AND FOR COMMriMENT TO COUNTY JAIL·
PAGE6
or the tennination of employment. This notice or a subsequent notice shall also provide the
current address of Respondent and the name and address of his current employer, whenever that
information becomes available.
Clerk's Duties
IT IS ORDERED that, on the request of a prosecuting attorney~· the title IV-D agency, the
ftiend of the court, a domestic relations office, Shondela Morton, or Peter Klamka, or an ·attorney
representing Shondela Morton or Peter Klamka, the clerk of this Court shall cause a certified
copy of the Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support and the Order to Withhold
Income for Costs and Fees to be delivered to any employer.
Issuance ofProcess
IT IS ORDERED that all writs and other process necessary. for the enforcement of this
order be issued.
ReliefNot Granted
AD reliefMand oot expressly g,anted is denied.
SIGNED on
~ zA, l. l<:J { /
..
.·
ORDER. HoLDING REsPONDENT IN CONl£MPT FOR F AlLURE TO PAY
CHILD SUPPORT, GRANJ'ING JUDGMENT, AND FOR COMMITMENT TO COUN'IY JAR.
PAGE7
.JwL U
2011 8:22AM
Off' - OF JUDGE FRANCIS
No. 6692
P. 2
S'I"AYE OF MICHIGAN·
·
IN THE COURT FOR llfE 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FAMfl. Y DIVISION
PETER C. KL.AMKA,
..
Plaintiff,
Hon. Nancy C. Wheeler
v.
Case No. 09-650-DM
· SHONDEL.A MORTON,
Defendant.·
Peter C. Klamka
Plaittiff In Pro Per
106 Centfal Park S, Apt G
New York, NY 10019
(646)455-9192
Michael D. Highfield (P23683)
Attorney Jar Defendant
350 South Main street'Ste 400
Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 . .
(734) 761-9000
fax:(212)~2461
Fax: (134) 761-9001
.. ..
. ORDER REGARDING fLAINTIFPS MOTION FOR
. .
CHILD SUPPORT CREDIT AND REQUIRING IMMEDI/\Jli RESUMPTION
OF PAYMENT IN ACCORD Willi EXISTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
Entered: July 2fo, 2011 .
On April 12. 2011, Plaintiff Peter Klamka filed a Motion. to Compel
Defendant's Statements Regarding Accounting of Child Support Credits. tn
that motion, Mr. Klamka's concerns centered on a show-cause prde.r issued
by .the Friend of the Court (FOC). whose records showed him to be more
than $85.000 in arr~ars on child support. In addition, FOC policy is that it
cannot address the proofs of payment offered by a payer who alleges that
payments were In fact made. to the payee. even if not. through the
FOC/MiSDU as ordered. Instead, it will honor only acknowledgments by
the payee that credit should be issued to the payer. Accordingly, Mr.
Klamka wanted this Court to order Defendant Shondela Morton to
acknowledge the chftd support credit due to him.
The motion was heard on ·April 26, 2011. The Court canceled the
ueeffilpg FOC sflo.w:CI!ISt beaFiag aAd mated U:Jal I would WAfk wiUt .,~,
FOC to determine the actual arrearage. It also asked that. i.n keeping with ·
the response that Ms. Morton's counsel filed to Mr. Klani.ka's moU!'n. Ms.
· Morton submit her own accounting for child support payments received_
1
..
.Ju I. 21. 201! 8: 22AIA
OFF"
Of JUDGE fRANCIS
No. 6692 · P. J
The Court ultimately submitted Mr. Klamka's inotlon, Ms. Morton's
response, Mr. Klamka's reply, and Ms.. Morton•s materials submitted in
response to the Jl:ld9e's request, including all attachments, to the FOC. lo
addition, judicial staff reviewed the documents as well as re~nt prior
orders of this Court In tandem with the FOC's Deputy Administrator. which
permitted the calculation of the· amount to be credited to Mr. Klamka.
On June 29, 2011, the FOC issued a memorandum to thiS Judge, which
was copied to Mr. Klamka and to Ms. Morton's courisel. ~ · m~mo
explained the credit to which Mr. Klamka was ·entitled, based on Ms.
Morton's acknowledgements.
·
The Courl adopts that analysis as correct. especially because. the Court's
own revl~ Indicates that the few points or dispute between the parties are
resolved by statements In this Court's own prior orders regarding stopped
checks and reduced payments.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Ktamka was properly cfedited for
$62,263 of the amount prev~usly sliown on FOC recor~s as arrearages.
Howeverr the Court also finds· that Mr. Klamka's monthly child· support
obligation continu~ to be $3600 per month under this .Court's. extant ch~d
support order, and that he has not paid in accord with that f)rder since
October 2010, at which lime he made only partial payment. Accordingly,
as of June 29, 2011; Mr. Klamka's arrearages were $33;367 .21, wilh some
$28,800 (exduslve of fees) incurred from November 1. 2010 onward. As of
today's date, the arrearages total $36,988.21 of which $32,421 Uncluding
fees) has been incurred since November 1, 2010. with another $3600 due
as of August 1. 2011.
·
The Court specifically. notes tOat Michigan contirlues to have enforcement
responsibility for its child support· orders, and that the Washteoaw County
FOC is bound to continue Its enforcement efforts aga\nst Mr. Klamka until it·
is informed that a Court in another State has taken junsifJCtlon over .lhe
child support case. 1
1 To this Court's knowledge. neither one of the parties has taken the necessatysteps to
register this Court's chUd support order in another State. which would allow roocflf~
by that Court if either party wants that, despite the fad that all parties. including the
child, haw residtd in either Texas or New York for many months. It ~ this CoUrt's
belief thai the language ·of the federafFull Faith and Credit for Child ~upport OldeB Act
2
.
.. ,. . . .
.:.
luLU. 2011
0~ JUOGl ~RANCIS
ott'
8:22AM
No. 6692
P. 4
The Court iS further determined that its orders must not be disregarded.
.
-
.
.
Accordingly, Mr. Klamka shall irTunediately resume paying his monthly chiJd
support obligation of $3600, and the FOC shall resume its enforcement
efforts regarding hJs arrearages once the credit has been properly applied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nancyc. Wheeler. Family i:>Msion Judge
Pf<OOF OF SERVICE
I certify lhat on
upon counsel for
~~k I served copies of this Order daled ?~k, upon P~lltf and
"'z-
8ndanl by first class mal to the addresses llsled in the heading and upon
_lor llelellcln ~
·
-·
lynn
c
isted In~~~· headilg. . .
fUM
Nancy ~- Wheeler
, Jud1clal Cocrdlnalor lo
(FFCCSOA), 28 USC 17388, does not permit this Court to modify orders beCause,
despite its continuing enforcement ptsdfctlon, It does not tmi8t the personal )JltsdldJoo
. requirements necessary to grant exclusive jurisdiction fOr modiflcaJion purposes.
·
.
.
.
.
3
283
8/18/2011 4:20PM SCANNED
IN THE INTERE8T OF'
§
I
IN THE DISTRICf COURT
PETER DILLON KLAMKA
§
§
-419" JUDICIAL DISTRICf
A CHILD
I
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
RI!SPONDRNT'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE., RXQUEBI' TO VACAT&
REGISTRATION, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND riRST AMENDKD ANSWER
Respondent, Peter KJamka files Ibis Special Appearance, Request to Vacate Registration,
Request for Hearing, and First Amended Answer. The last three numbers of Respondent's Social
Security number are 122.
1.
RGpOnlklll'a Spl!cllll~~
Respondent files this special appearance under rule 120a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. Respondent's legal domicile is outside Texas and is in NeW Yoik. Respondent's
person and property are not amenable to process issued by the courts of Texas. None of the
.
grounds for personal jurisdietion provided in the Texas Family Code are applicable. Assumption
of jurisdiction over Respondent by this Court would offend traditional noti•..of fair play and
substantial justice. Respondent has had insufficient contacts with TexaS to ~tan 888\Uilption
.
.
of jurisdiction. Respondent prays that this court hear and determine tbis ~enge to pel'BOnal
jurisdiction before hearing any other plea or pleading and enter an appropriate
order. In
.
'
conjunction with this
~iol
appearance, Respondent is providing an· affidavit that sets out in
greater detail tbe factual cireums1ances tbat mpport this special ~·
In Petitioner's Second Amended Petition to Establish Parent..Cbild Relationship she
maintains that "no court bas jurisdiction of the JYi1 or of the child the su~. of this ~t ...,
(Emphasis added). This is not accurate since. as Petitioner is aware, Michigan maintains
..
jurisdiction over the child support issue.
.
.. .
In Petitionefs Second .A1MDded Motion for Reconsideration, through her attorney of
record, maintains that "[a]t this time Petitioner concedes that tbis cOurt does not have personal
jurisdiction over Respondent in relation to matters involving child support, or visitation expenses;
however, Petitioner asserts that this Court does have the ability to exert jmisdiction over
Respondent in relation to making a. child custody delermination." The Court acknowledged that
it did not bave jurisdiction o~r Respondeat and granted Petitioner's MOtion for Reconsideration
on the issue of the determination child custody.
Respondent requests that the Court grant Respondent's spocial appearance.
R4qunt ID Vua ~
2.
a
On August 18, 2011, Respondent rwe.ived a request to register and enforce chijd support
order pursuant to Texaa Family Code section 159.602. However, in order for this court to enforce
a foreign order, it must first have personal jurisdiction over :Respondent pursuant to Texas Family
Code section 159.201. None of the grounds for perso.naljurisdictionprovided in section 159.201
of the Texas FB111ily Code are applicable. Assumption of jurisdiction over Respondent by this
Comt would offend traditi.onal notions of fair play and substantial justice. Respondent hlUI had
insufficient contacts with Texas to warrant an assumption of jurisdiction. Respondent prays that
this court hear and determine this challenge to personal jurisdiction before registering tM foreign
support order, hearing any other plea or pleading, and enter an appropriate order. Respondent ls
providing an affidavit that
sets out in greater detail the factual circ~ces that support this
request.
J.
ReqNGt fill' H.,.U,g
Respondent requests that the court set this matter for hearing pUrsuant t~ ~ 159.606
•.
f/8
.....l
of the Texas Family Code.
Petitioner's Second Amended Petition to Establish Parent-Child Relationship and Request
to
Register ancl Enforoe o guJd support order was filed frivolously or is designed to barass
Respondent. If the Court declines jurisdiction over the child support dett:r.mination, modification.
and/or enforcement; Respondent asks that the Court require Petitioner 1o pay neeeasary and
reasonable expenses incurred by Responden~ includiDJ costs, communication ex.,en-, attorney's
fees, expenses for witnesses, and nvel expenses during the course of these proceedings.
Respondent requests that the Court order that payment be made to the clert of the Court for
remittance to Respondent.
.tl.
OrlgiiUIJ AIUWr
Subject to the fotegoing. and without waiving same, Respondent ~tcrs a gepcral denial.
5.
Attomq~ Fus
It was necessary for Respondent to secure the services of Daryl T. Gordon. a licensed
attorney, to~ ~~nd protect the child's rights. Petitioner should he o!rleled to pay reasonable
attorney's fees, expenses, and costs through 1rial and appeal. and ajudguient shi>uld be rendenxi in
favor of this attorney and against Petitioner and be ordm:d paid directly 1o Respondent's attorney,
who may enforce the judgment in the attorney's own name. Respondent requests po~udgment
interest as allo~d by law.
6.
Prayer
Respondent prays that the Court grant the relief requested ~ the SJ)ecial Appearance.
Request to Vacate Registration, and Request for Hearing.
Respondent prays for attorney's fees, expenses, costs, and interest as requested above.
Respondent prays for general relief.
Respectfully submittm,
. ·
LAw OmcsOJDARYL T GoRDON
701 Eut 15th Street, Suite 102 .
Plano, Texas 75074
Tel: (912) 673..0303
Fax:(972)673-o370
By:~
Daryl T. Gordon
=~
State Bar No. 00788883
Attorney for Respondent
Verification
The unde.rsipd states under oath: "I arn Respondent in the
. tbre.going
.
. Respondent's
kno~ledge ~f
Special Appearance and Request to Vacate Registration. I have personal
allegations and facts stated therein, and they are
SIGNED under oath before me on
OP'J"'f l(i eou
'
..
.
the
Cenlfleate of Service
I certify that a true copy of tbe above was served on each attorney of record or pirty in
accordance with tbt Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on August 18, 2011.
Daryl T. Gordon
AtWmey fur Respondent.
EXHIBIT A·
.
.
1182
.
...
.
.
.
NO. 42M6JS5-21JO
IN mE INTEREST OF
§
§
IN THE DlftRICI' COURT
PETER DILLON KLAMKA
§
4l,a JUDICIAL DISTRICJ'
A CHILD
I
I
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
RESPONDENT'S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVl1'
PETER KLAMKA appeared in person before me today and stated under Oath:
"My name is PETER KLAMKA. I am competent to make this affidavit The filets s1ated in
this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and arc true md comet
"ram the Respondent in 1his case.
UOn July 26, 2011, the 22~ Judicial Circuit Court of Michipn. Family Division, Case No.
09-650-DM entered an Order Reprtlinr Plaintiff's Mqion for CNJd S\g)ort Credit and Requiring
Immediate Resumption of Payment in AcrQnl with F.xistiDI Qild 8Juugt9rdeE.
"I was not served with the Petition to Establish a Parent-Child Relationabip within tbe State
of Texas.
.
"I am a resident of New York, New York and I do not nor have I ever maintained a
residence witbin the StBte ofTexas.
"I hitve never resided with PetEr Dillon Klamb in the state ofTexu. I have stayed in hotels
and motels with Peter Dillon Klamka periodically, but I haw not eatabiJshcd a maidenc:e with Peter
Dillon Klamka in Texas.
"Neither I nor Petitioner resided in Texas while Petitioner was prqpl8D1 wilh O\a' cbild, Peter
Dillon Klamka. Petitioner moved to Texas in January of2010 foremploymem.
"Peter Dillon K.lamka resides in Texas as a direct result of the acts of Petitioner, Shon
Morton. Respondent did not concede. and, in fiK:t, objeetcd to Shon ~les mo~ with the child
to the State of Texas.
''The child was not conceived in Texas.
"I have not asserted parentage in the patenrity registry maintained in Texas by the bureau of
vi1Bl ~l.atistics.
PeterKI
..
SIGNED w1der oath before me on August 18,2011.
Not
Public, State ofTexas·
!!~!!~!=!!----·
...
•
.
;
Rapoadent'• Supportllll AtlldPit- Pap~ af2
·.
. ...
.·
6
Hichigan.
2
3
4
register,
5
Vacate.
~equest
to
It'5
.-
\......... ~
- .._ - -
6
7
easier
8
registered.
:...;-,~---
... "-A- ...... -
,
.:c: rilight be
9
10
~:s
.
:::-,;;;.:: or1e order.
11
Thank you.
12
17
All
Is that correct:
18
19
20
because
qo ahc ..1d ..
21
22
25
support order.
'"Tuly 26th,
8/18/2011 SCANNED Page 1
NO. 429-S63SS-Z010
IN THE INTEREST OF
PETER DILLON KLAMKA
A CHILD
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
.
4Z9TH JVDICIAL DISTRl~
COLUN COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
AND ORDER TO APPEAR
:
This Motion for Enforcement of Child Support Order is brought by ShondeJa Morton,
Movant. The last three numbers of Shondela Morton's driver's license. number are 892. The last
three numbers of Sbondela Morton's Social Security number are 320_.
l.
Discovery in this case is intended to be conducted under .level 2 of rule 190 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.
The child the subject of this suit is:
Name: Peter Dillon Klamka
Sex: Male
Birth date: ll/14/2006
3.
This Court bas continuing. exclusive jurisdiction of. this case as a result of prior
proceedings.
4.
The parties entitled to notice are as follows:
a.
Respondent, Peter Klamka, who is the father of the cbiJd ~e subject of this
suit.
Process should be served at 106 Central ParkS, Apt G, New york, Ne\v York 10019, or
wherever he may be found.
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND ORDER M
PAGEl OF5
.
1811 AUG 18 PH 2: 42
. ' .
I . -~RlGGER
'(:;.~·; .-, .i:
r CLERK
<~,\~~~~
..
5.
On July 26,2011 in Cause No. 09-650-DM, styled "Peter C. Klamka v. Sbondela
Morton." in the Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit Family Division of the State of Michigan, the
Court signed an order that appears in the minutes ofthe Court and is attached hereto as Exhibit 11A."
The aforementioned order was registered with the 429tb Judicial Court of Collin County,
Texas on August 16, 2011.
Movant was the Petitioner and Respondent was the Respondent in the prior proceedings.
6.
Respondent has violated the order described above as follQws: ·
Peter Klamka, Respondent, is in contempt of court for firiling io pay to Movant the full
amount of child support due on each of the payment dates shown below.
Violation
Date Due
Date Paid
Amount Due
1.
81112011
None
$3,600.00
·Amount Paid
1
7.
,
$'0.00
Movant requests that for each violation alleged a~ve, ReSpondent be held in
contempt, jailed for up to 180 days, and fined up to $500, and that each period of confinement run
and be satisfied concurrently.
.8.
Movant believes, based on the repeated past violations of the Court's order by
Respondent. that Respondent will continue to fail to comply with the order. Movan~ requests that
Respondent be held in contempt, jailed, and fined for each failure to comply with the Court's order
from the date of this filing to the date oftbe bearing on this motion. Specific~lly, Respondent has
been ordered to pay child support under the order sought to be enforced on each of the following
future dates and in the following amounts:
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND ORDER TO APPEAR
PAGElOFS
.•
l>
.•
,
..•
9.
Date Due
Amount Due·.
911/2011
$3,600.00
10/1/2011
$3,600.00
11/1/2011
$3,600.00
Movant requests that Respondent be confined in the county jail until Respondent
complies with the order of the Court.
10.
Respondent's total arrearage at the time of filing is $40,588.61, including $36,988.21
owed on previously confirmed arrearages and $3,600.00 in unpaid. child support previously
confirmed. Movant requests confirmation of all arrearages and rendition. ofjudgment plus interest
on arrearages, attorney's fees, and costs. Movant requests the Court to order ~me withheld for the
arrearages, attorney's fees, costs, and interest.
11.
Movant requests that Respondent be placed on community supervision for ten years
on release from jail or suspension of commitment.
12.
Respondent has been in arrears for thirty days or more for some portion ofthe amount
due and is in arrears for an amount equal to at least one month's support. Movant requests the Court
to order income withheld for current child support or order a bond or security. ·
13.
Movant requests that. if the Court finds that any part of the ~rder sought to be
enforced is not specific enough to be enforced by contempt, the Court enter a clarifying order more
clearly specifying the duties imposed on Respondent and giving Respondent a n:asonable time within
which to comply.
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND ORDER TO APPEA.ft
PAGE39FS
·'.
..·..
14.
It was necessary to.secure the services ofRebecca L. Annstrong, a licensed attorney,
to enforce and protect the rights of Shondela Morton and the child the subject of this suit.
Respondent should be ordered to pay reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs, and ajudgment
should be rendered in favor of the attorney and against Respondent and be ordered paid directly to
the undersigned attorney, who may enforce the judgment in the attorney's own name. Movant
requests postjudgment interest as allowed by law.
Movant prays that Respondent be held in contempt and punished·· as requested, that a
judgment be granted for arrearage plus interest on arrearages, that the Court order community
supervision, that the Court order income withheld for child support,. child support arrearages,
attorney's fees, and costs or order a bond or security, that the Court'Clarify any .part of its prior order
found not specific enough to be enforced by contempt, for attorney's fees,. expenses, costs, and
interest, and for all further relief authorized by law.
Respectfully submitted
KOONSFVLLER, P.C•.
5700 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2200
Plano, TX 75093
·
Tel: 972-769-2727
:E313
REBECCA L. ARMSTR
..
G
State Bar No. 240625899
Attorney for Respondent .
;
. ·....·
.
.
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND ORQER TO APP~
. · PAGE40FS
..
'.
Order to Appear
Respondent, Peter Klamka, is ORDERED to appear and respond to this Motion for
Enforcement of Child Support Order in 429111 Judicial District Court ofCollin County, Texas on_
- - - - - - - - - - at
. m. The purpose of this hearing is to determine
whether the relief requested in this motion should be granted.
SIGNED on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
JUDGE PRESIDING
.·
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND ORDER TO APPEAR
PAGES0)15
.!.-~.
21. 2011 8:22AM
OFF.
Of JUDGE FRANCIS
No. 6692
P. 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT FOR llfE u.ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FAMILY DIVISION
PETER_C. KLAMKA,
PlalnUff,
Hon. Nancy C. Wheeler
v.
Case No. 09-650-DM
SHONba.A MORTON,
Defendant.
Peter C. Klamka
Michael D. Hlghtlefd (P23683)
Plaintiff In Pro Per
106 Central P811c S, Apt G
Attorney lor Oefendn
.
350 South Main Stteet ste 400
Ann Arbor, M 48104
.· · .
(734) 761·9000
Fax: (734) 761-9001
New VOlfe, NY 10019
(646)455-9192
Fax: (212) 956-2461
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFPS MOTION FOR
CHILD SUPPORT ~REDIT AND REQUIRING IMMEDIAJ$ RESUMPDQN
OF PAYMENT IN ACCORD WITH EXISTING CHILD S£JPPORT ORDER
Entered: July 21,, 2011
On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff Peter Klamka filed a Motion to Compel
Defendant's Statements Regarding Accounting of Child Support Credits~ In
that motion, Mr. Klamka's concerns centered on a show-cause <?fder issued
by .the Friend of the Court (FOC), whose records showed him to be more
than $85,000 in arrears on child support. In addition, FOC policy Is that it
cannot address the proofs of payment offered by a payer who alleges that
payments were In fact made to the payee. even If not through the
FOC/MiSOU as ordered. Instead, it wilf honor only acknowledgments by
the payee that credit should be Issued to the payer. Accordingly, Mr.
Klamka wanted this Court to order Defendant Shondela Mort~ to
acknowledge the child support credH due to him.
The motion was heard on April 26. 2011. The Court canceled the
•tpcoPiAg FOC &how-taus• A8aRR9 aRd stale" that it wou~d ·MGt:k witR tl:le
FOC to detennlne the actual arrearage. It also asked that. in keeping with
the response lhat Ms. Morton•s counsel filed to Mr. Klamka's· mo~n. Ms.
Morton submit her own accounting for child support payments received.
1
·,
.
.
\
..,
:"':•
.·
.•T
•
-1~1.
2/. 201! 8:22AM
Off •. OF JUDGE FRANCIS
· No. 6692
P )
The Court ultimately submllted Mr. Klamka's mOtion, Ms. Morton's
response, Mr. Klamka's reply, and Ms. Morton's materials submitted in
response to lhe Judge's request, including all attachments, to the FOC. In
addition, judicial staff reviewed the documents as well as releVant prior
orders of thfs Court In tandem with the FOC's Deputy Administrator, which
permitted the calculation of the amount to be credited to Mr. Klamka.
On June 29, 2011, the FOC issued a memorandum to this Judge, which
was copied to Mr. KJamka and to Ms. Morton's counsel. The memo
explained the credit to which Mr. Klamka was ·entitled, based on Ms.
Morton's acknowledgements.
·
·
The Court adopts that analysis as correct, especially because the Court's
own review Indicates that the few points of dispute between· the parttes are
resolved by statements in this Court's own prior orders regarding s~~pped
checks and reduced payments.
.·
, .
·
Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Klamka was properly credited for
$62,263 of the amount prevt.ously shown on FOC records as arrearages.
However, the Court also finds that Mr. Klamka's moJlthly ci)Md support
obligation continues to be $3600 per month under this court•s·extant child
support order, and that he has not paid in accord with .that order slt1ce
October 2010, at which time he made only partial payment. ~rdlngly.
as of June 29, 2011, Mr. Klamka's arrearages were $33,367.21. with some
$28,800 (exdusive of fees) incurred from November 1, 2010 onward. As of
today's date, the arrearages total $36,988.21 of whlch $32,421 (including
.fees) has been incurred since November 1, 2010, with another $3600 due
as of August 1, 2011.
·
·
.
The Court specifically notes that Michigan continues to have enforcement
responsibility for its child support· orders, and that the Washtenaw County
FOC fs bollld to continue Its enforcement efforts against M~. Kl~mka u~til i~
Is informed that a Court in another State has taken juri~¢fictlotl qver the·
child supporl case.1
·
·
1
To this Court's knowledge. neither one of the parties has taken the necessary st• to
register this Court's child support order in another State, which would allow rhodif~tion
by lhat Court ir either party wants that, despite the fact lhat aD parties. incluc:ltng ~o
child, have resided in eilher Texas or New York for many mont~.· .'It is this C~urt s
belief that the language of the federal Full Faith and Credit for Chilc:I'Support OrderS Act
2
.
.
175
175
Ia I.
21. 2011 8:27AM
OH;
0~ JUDG~ ~RANCIS
No. 6692
P. 4
The Court is further determined that its orders must not ~·disregarded.
Accordingly, Mr. Klamka shall immediately resume paying his monthly child
support obligation of $3600, and the FOC shall resume Us enforcement
efforts regarding his arrearages once the credit has been properly applied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7Lo ~
0. _,;~/~
Nancyi:Wheeler, Family DMslon Judge
I cortiy lhat ..,
upon CW1S8I for
rtf:;J
.
-:.
.•
PROOF OF SERVICE
?M/.
.
lsorvod .....,. d Olio Onlorupon P - and
8ndanl by first dais mall to the addresses lsted In lhe headilig and upon
c:ounsellol-~ .. z....--~~~""' ~
~JL-u ·1-UM
L
~Judicial Coordlnalor to
Nancy G. Wheeler
.
..
(FFCCSOA). 28 usc 17388, does not pennlt this Court to modifY. orders because,
desple its continuing enforcement ).trisdlcllon, It does not meet the personal jurisdldlon
requhments neceasary to grant exclusive jurisdiction for modification purposes.
3
~
.;
9/2312011 8:56 AM Scanned
NO. "l9-56355-l010
IN THE INTEREST OF
PETER DILLON KLAMKA
§
I
I
§
§
A CHILD
IN THE DISTRI
429111 JUDICIAL DISTRICf
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
RESPONDENT'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST TO VACATE
REGISTRATION AND REQUEST FOR BEARING
Respondent, Peter Klamka files this Supplemental Special Appearance~ Request to Vacate
Registration, Request for Hearing. and First Amended Answer. The last three numbers of
Respondent's Social Security number are 122.
Relevant FtJcts
1.
The parties originally filed and were divorced in Detroit, Michigan". Du~g the
co•
.
proceedings, the Court allowed the divorce proceeding to be severed ftom the
. ' suit affecting the
parent child relationship ("SAPCR'') issues.
2.
On October 6, 2008, the Michigan Court issued an lqterim Order for Parenting
Time and Support (a copy of the order is attached hereto as E.xhib~t "A" IU_ld. incorporated by
reference as if set forth at length).
3.
On April7, 2009, the Michigan Court issued a child support otder which provides
for a final determination of child support to be made at a later date and applied retroactively back
to October 1, 2008 (a copy of the order is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by
reference as if set forth at length). Apparently, no final order determination on tne issue of child
support was ever made in Michigan, which left the parties operating under.. the tenns of a
temporary order for an indefinite period af time.
4.
On December 9, 2010, the Michigan Court dismissed the
custOdy and visitation
RapeDd..t'• Jllnt Supplemental Re~l To Vacate RecJIII'IIIolllnd Rcqul!ll fllr Haarlft& • Pl8e 1 qf 5
.. ,
portion of the SAPCR finding that it had lost subject matter jurisdiction over the case as a result of
both parties moving outside of the State ofMichigan. The December 9, 2010 order, however was
silent on the issue of jurisdiction over the child support issue.
S.
On December 22, 2010, Petitioner, Shon Gables filed a Petition to Establish
Parent-Child Relationship in Collin County, Texas. In response, Respondent filed a special
appearance.
6.
On February 25, 2011, the Court entered an order granting Respondetlt Special
Appearance.
7.
On March 3, 2011, Petitioner fded a Motion to Reconsider the Court's February 25,
2001 ruling. In that motion, Petitioner conceded the fact that this court did not have personal
jurisdiction over Respondent "in relation to matters involving child support, or visitation
expenses."
8.
After a series of motions and hearings, on March 7, 2011, this Court entered an
Order of Clarification acknowledging that it does not have personal juri!idiction over Respondent.
but that, pcndfug the detennination of the New York court, it could exercise jU!isdiction·over the
custody and visitation issues in this matter.
9.
On May 3, 2011, the Michigan Court entered an order pointing out confusion with
its December 9, 2010 order as it relates to child support and the fact thai the ~fld support prder of
;.,
.
the court was not signed until OctoberS, 2010 (a true and correct copy ~f the May 3 2010
Michigan order is attached hereto as Exhibit "C' and incorporated ~y referen~ as is set forth at
length}.
10.
On May 17,2011, Respondent filed a Petition for Foreign Judgment and a Sworn
Statement in Support of Registration of Foreign Child Custody Deteqnination (ln~m Qrder for
Ralpoadeat'a Jlrat Suppl_..l-"*!•ott To Vaetee .........tloa aad R.lp..C for Hearln& ·Pap 2 o£5
227
227
Custody and Support).
11.
On May 19, 2011, Respondent filed an Original Counterpetition in Suit Affecting
the Parent-Child Relationship.
12.
On May 26, 2011, Petitioner filed a Request to Contest the Validity of Registered
Custody Determination. The basis of Petitioner's argument is that Respopdmt did not file the
subsequent orders issued by the Michigan Court. Therefore, under Texas Family Code
§159.602(a)(l ), the court could not register the judgment.
13.
On June 16, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner•s request and issued an order
declining to register the Interim Order for Custody and Child Support. However, this Order, in
part, forms the basis of Petitioner's Motion for Enforcement of Child Support filed on August 18,
2011.
14.
On July 26,2011, the Michigan court issued an Order Regarding Plaintiff's [Peter
Klamka] Motion for Child Support Credit (a copy of the July 26, 2011 Michigan order is attached
hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated by reference as if set forth at length).
15.
On August 9, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Reconsider the July 26th
Michigan Order. This matter is still pending.
16.
..
On August 16,2011, Petitioner filed a Swom Statement in Support ofRegistration
of the July 26th Michigan Order.
17.
On August 18, 2011, Petitioner tiled a Motion for Enfurcement of the July 26'h
Michigan Order.
Request to Yaclde Registrlltion
Section 159.602(a)(l) of the Texas Family Code clearly provides for the registr~ion of a
support order .... which is the very order that Petitioner opposed. Ins~d.' Petitio~~ i~ seeking to
Rnpoadent'• J11nC Suppl.-tal Req!MIIt Ta Vacate Jle&bt.-Mian and Rcqu....t fer Hwlnc - Pago3 of 5
••• f:
register an Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Child Support Credit without the underlying
child support order. If, §150.602 of the Texas Family Code requires the regisfJ:4tion of the child
support order and any orders modifying or clarifying the original order, then is seems to'r:eason
that the reverse would be true. In the immediate case, the order is simply an order of
Requatfor Helll'ing
.
.
Respondent requests that the court set this matter for hearing pursuant to ..Sections 159.606
and 159.607 of the Texas Family Code.
Prayer
Respondent prays that the Court grant the relief requested in the Request to Vacate
Registration.
Respondent prays for general relie£
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OmCE OF DARYL T GORDON
701 East 15th Street, Suite 102
Plano, Texas 75074
Tel: (972) 673-0303
Fax: (972) 673-0370
By:/'-~~
Daryl T. Gordon
State Bar No. 00788883
Attorney for Respondent • ·
RIIJioRde.t'a Jlnt &u,lea•tal Reqatst To Vacate Bealattatt.nud Rtll•nC fur Heartaa • Paac • o£5
Certificate ofSernce
I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on September 2~. 2011.
Daryl iGOOJl
Attorney for Respondent
Respondeat's Jrlnt Supplemntal Reqa•t T• Vacate Jltllstratle• 111d Reqaut far Heul1111 • ]lqe 5 ofS
KR9·16-~0II(HDN)
• I
..
11:39
P.ODS/009
...
. ..
\
:
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THB CIRCUIT COURT POll TBB COtJN'I'Y OP WABHTBNAW
PBT.BR.C.~
Plaintiff,
Case No. 08-534-DM
HONORABLS NANCY C. FRANCIS
SRON~OR.TON,
Dctmdaat.
DIANA RAIMI (P-29276)
ICBNNETHB. PRATHBRSR. (P19071)
MOUN.lWMI &. GOBTHEI., P.C. ·
Attomeys fDr Plaiatfif
320 N. Mlfn stmct. Suite 101
ADn Arbor, M1' 48104
.ICl!NNB'.lll :S. PRATHER, SR., p.C.
(734) 769-&838
{313) 8~CS22 ·
AUorn~ for Dc.fc:adant
5 Stnd:ford Place
OrUIIC Pomte, MI 48230
..
INTERIM ORDJBFQR P.ARENTJNGTIME ANp S~IT
Eotercd /(J ...J. -
il' ~- .
=.
c:
:::;~ . ·-
2008
~~ ~ ~""~
..h :er
!:It~
_g,m
Hem. Nanay C. Fnnci8
.
£lX
This matter came before the Court at a hearing bel~-si~ 3!~008
on the Defendant's Motion for Custody and Parenting T~..
·Hames
The Court haS considered tho
arguments of coUil8el and tho report of the Friend of the Court issued
appeated in person and tbrough counsel
. September 29, 2008. IT IS ORDHRl!D that:
1. Interim Parenting Time: Beginning October 1, 2008, the parties shall
have parenting time with the minor child, Peter DiUen.Klamka, for
.
)
alternate three-week periods. The father's time shall start October 1,
2008. The mother's parenting time shall begin on OCtober 22, 2008,
.
·'"
_
.
provided that before October 22, 2008, the mother s... F ~.!:
..
lo!OMN, 11.1.11111
1: OOITIIat., r c.
·
.•s
11
~~~--~
Kll..ntniT
·.
MA~-16-20JI(HDN)
II1AO
~.
&[:
....
\i_ .
;
P.006/0D9
Court and to the father's coUDSel written documentation, inCJudhlg
··
photo~pJts, sboWing that she bas a suital?le two bedroom mddence
with adequate space and provision for herself and the clilld If she fails
to provide such documentation by that date, then her out of state
p~ting time shall not begin until after she baa provided 1his
documeo:tation. OWing each parent's tln'ee week perlod, the other
parent sball have parenting time with the child trom one Saturday at
9:30 AM to Sunday at noon. Bach parent shall notify the other of the
selected Saturday overnight no later than .the start of the otb« parent~s
parenting tlme. Neither parent sball use this time to interfere with or'to
spy on the other para1t.
2. Transportadon and Travel Bq»ease: The mother shall ammge and
pay for the child's air t:ransportatiOn
and adult ac~m,;meat from
~troit Metro Airport to the airport nearest her h~~ ai the starl ofber
parentiDg periods. The fa~ shall bring the child to Detroit Metro for
the mather's pickup. The father shaU arrange and pay for the cbild~s air
transportation and adult accompaninlent to Detroit Metro Ahport from· .
the airport ncat'est the moths's ho.n1e at the start ofbis parenting
peri<XkJ. The mother sball bring the child to the aiiport for the father's
pickup~
Each parent shall timely transport the child to the ailport for the
parenting time exchanges. Each parent shall give the qther parent at
least seven days' notice of the child's :flight times and the parties shall
attempt to be cooperativo in accommodating each other 1S schedules
when arrangin~ flight times. Each parent sball bear his/her own cost of
travel for the Saturday overnight parenting time.
loiQ1\AII.P.MMI
ot. 06~TIUII.,I'.C,
.,
2
.·.
.J ;_
HR~-16-ZOII(MON)
('.'
11a40
· P. 001/009
3. Child Care: The motbCr.~ rcpresynted to the COurt that she has
·engaged ar will engage a. full time nmmy to C8:ft for the' cllild.
1-b · ·
pamnts ~y
asree to share child catC BITangernenti
ind cxpcnae in any
.
.
mutually agieeable fashion. Absent agreement. the costs ofbo~
· parents' child care shall b8 taken into account in aeuing chJ1d support in
.accqrdance with the Michigan Child Support Formula.
.;
4. ChUd Sapport :Bffective Oetober 1, 2008, Plaintiff !ather ahall ~y
cbild support to Defendant mother in accordance with the }4ichigan
Child Support Formula. Pending support calculations and 1i,nther Order,
the tither shall pay support (including child care) at the rate of $4337.•
This includes base support of $1459; otdinary health care of $17, and
child care expense for the mother of $2862. The p~es shall submit to
the Friend of the Court for clarification, and the F~nd of the Court
shall issue a new r~mmendation for supp~ based upon both pamcs' ·
incomes, child Clll'e expenses and the parenting time or~ed here. Arl"t
futui'e modification shall be retroactive to the start date of the child
'
_,_
support ordered here. 'Ibo patties shall enter a Uniform Child Support
Order containing tbe required provisioos, consistent with tbis Order.
5. Temporary Order: This is a Temporary Order and is wiihou~ preju~ce
.
.
.
to the Court's future rulings at subsequent bea:dngs or artriat. The
hiOIU"• aAIIo11
A OOUTICilu P.t;.
3
1,.
.
..
MPY·l6-~0II(MDN)
•
·P.DOB/OOIJ
11:40
I
I
·'
Court's Ma:rph 7, 2008 Rx Parte Of&n. is set aside.
Approved as to form oidyz ..
·~NIL. ~• ~~
D
-~
Jr.
~
.
K£.
B.
Pmtbot. Ir., attorney forD
'·
',
.' '
woaAit, llAIWl
11.
ooa1'Mill., r.c.
4
.' '.
HA9-16-~0II(HON)
(*\·
....
li:AO
P. 009/009
NOTICE OF RBGISTRAT.lON 011' II'OREIGN.
CHILD CUSTODY DETDMJNA'I'ION
To: Shon Morton, 7134 Prairie Flower Lane, Pri:ICO, TCXDS 75034
1.
A COPY of a Cldld custody dr:tcnninstlon tbat baa bcon rcgiatmd. under Texas
Family Code chapter 1'2, aubchapaer D. b attached to this notice, alons witl1 any ~lng
documBI1ts and reJated information.
2.
A registcnd Gblld custody dctcmnination is enforceable as of1hc date of the
registration in the same maaner as a child cuatod.y ~!nation ia1:1cd by a Tcxaa court.
3.
A licaring to ~teSt the validity of the resistJred cbild custody determfnation
mliSt be requested witbin twenty days iftcr acrvicc of1hi1 notice.
4.
Failure to come.st the reQismltlon will n:.wlt In conBmwlon oftbc child..custody .
determination and preclude i'ul1her eomest of that determination with rcspcct to any matter that
could have: bcon assencd.
.
District Clerk or CoUin Cowrty, Texas
By~-------------------Dcputy
..
ORDER FOLLOWING
MOTION HEARING
P.O
Court
Plaintiff'•...,.., addrM•IIItd ftlfphone number:
OR Plllnllfr• neme 1ml ,.,., .a11tu1 &
tMphont numlw rtf AttotJMy of~
\)
-L~
c..,
.V
~l~~ ~,.,....
Ret:onl
S ~ o"""
Date of Hearing:
The Court's ruling on
f {.,..; "'l fr
\)Lo-,\..r't.-A.. c:.."'-~
r{
. f• , . ,.. ..,.... antllelephone
nulllbtr OR~,..,,.,.,..,
•~~tea A N/tphone number of Atlomey of
ftr~·. \
\1\'\.o-~
{,'\ ~cs o.~
's Motion is as follows:
{.{ svyvP•'"'tI Dt..,.~,.......c.- ,...,{
arc.ll.:"tA..-="\
~
~c..
~...; '-""' , • .-J , 4:p ('c.~c-0 ~ ..... ~(. 04 • ..r
f~ ~o--n.t ~~c-+~"'1C A~VI•, ~ J?*j:d4·. ~ .•,. "~·
t k ISr'-r ~P& h-ro-,...t, •
I
L./ '• ,,,
~
Zt. .. :%
a~
S/gnatu?r Judge
OO
RO!OTE CSID
STATUS
Received
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT FOR THE.ue dUDICI.AI. CIRCUIT
FAMILY DM8ION·
PBTER C. KLAMKAl
Plaintiff,
Hon. Nancy C; Wb~ler . .
Cue Na. 09-880-DM
v.
SHONDELA MORTON,
Def~dant.
PMO.KIM*a
PWntlff In Pro Ptlr
108 Central P.-k 8
New VcR. NV 10019
(6416)4~9192
\
~
ORDER FOLLQWING MOTION HEARING ON APRfL g§1 201·1 '
..
Enterld: May 3, 2011
On Apr11 26, 2011, this Court heard arguments on Plaln.tlff Peter Kiamka's
motion to oompel Defendant Shondela Morton's statsment of. aooounOng
regarding child support payments. The motion arlsee from .a a&rlea of
show--cause hearings set by the Friend of the Court because of an aHeged
arrearage of upwards of $86,000 owed by Mr. Klamka, WhiCh Mr. Klarnka
clalme he paid to Ms. Mof't9n, and has proof of checks paid to her Whloh
Me. Morton should acknowledge so that the Friend of the Court mm credit
his aooounl Another show..aause hearing was set for May 5, 2.011,
Thro~h counsel Ms. Morton conceded that some payments were made to
her directly, but wlahe& to respond more completely after ravlawlng Mr.
· Klamka's proofs. Mr. Klamka oonceded that h$ hal not pafd chid ~pport
since this court Issued Ita December 9, 2010 Order Partially. Termtnattno
Jurtsdlctlon.
This Court'& determtnatlon on Deoember 9, 2010 that it had lost jurisdioUon
of custody mattera In this case wee lesued In compliance with the Uniform
Child Cuetody Jurl&didJOn and Enforcement Act (UCCJE!A), whldl
terminates a Mlohlgan court's contlnuJng jurisdiction over cus
matters
when that court, or a court of another state. determJnes th
!BNT'S
and the child are no longer IMng In Miohig&n.
BXHlBIT
1
E '4
8££9 'OJt
The Coulfs·Oecember 9, 2010 order did not addta88 jUrisdiction over. the
matter of chid support. which Is not geMmed by the UCCJEA, but by the ·
Uniform lnteratate.Family Support Ad (UIFSA).
.
Under the UfFSA. a court that issues a chBd support ordw oannot modify
_. . that order o~ the payer, the Pl'f88. and the child have aJtlefl the state:
f-:1~~. thel?."lglnatlng court atll has resp~lbll~ for enforcement of the
or~er. ~~~II One of the Parties lnltfitea prooaedlngs In ·anotfiififiti fC)' modify·
the ex~~~~_ord_er._
· · . · · -·-- ·--·· ............ --- ----·-- ----..·---.. . . .
·The govemmg chJid support order Which was not entered until Ootobef' .5,
20'1 0 beaause of delays by counaat In preparing tl-1e order.
effeoffve as
of April 1, 2009. That order requt. Mr. Klamka to pay ~Hd •upport of
$3800 per month to Ms. Morton through the Michigan Stab? OfeJ)uraement. ·
Unit (MISOU).
. · .· .
wu
Wheth~ or not guided
by fegal counsel on this point. Mr. Klamka wrongly
assumed that he was no longer obligalad to oonttn~ paying child support
after the Oeoember 9, 20~0 ordEir.
The Court wtU work with the Friend of the Court to attempt to deteimine tha
amount of arrearagee owed under the exteUng order. This re\1ew wll
lnolude the dooUments aubmftted by Mr. Klamka, but may requlro additional ·
evldenoe whether or not offered at an evidentiary hearing. Me. Morton may ·
also submH document$ In support of her position.
Pendlng the Court's detennination, the ahow-cauae heanng aet for May 5,
2011 Is CANCELlED.
Mr. I<Jam!ca sbaU msume hts phlld cwpport Ql\tl!l@Ok$ !~!atelvs md thai!
liiOrisv tbe auearoO& that be fldmowledaad accrued becaut;lot hlf
wrongfUl uatnnpUoo.
. ..
-
.·
This Court has no authority to address parenting Hme I88Ue8 or reque1ts for ·
modlfJcatlon of the child support order that wera raised by Mr. Klamka at
the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~~-
/1..11~
Nancy~ .Wheeler, Family Division Judge
2
t 'd
.
8EE9 '0N
i98
I
•.
i! 1011 8:12AM
OFFICE Of JUOG£ FRAMCIS
flo. 6692
P. 2
Sl'A'I'f OF MtCHIGAN
IN THE COURT FOR lltE 2'J!I' JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FAMILY DMSION
'
PETER C. Kl.AMKA,
PlalnUff,
Hon. Nan.cy C. Wheeler ..
v.
Case No. 09'~65D-DII/t
SHONOELA MOR'rON,
Dafandant.
Peler c. Kl.-nka
Plaintiff In Pro Per
108 Centlf ParkS, Apt G
,.._1 D.lighfleld (P23883)
Attorney far~
350 South Main SfNet Ste 400
Ann Arbor, M148104
(734) 701-9000
NewYortc. NV i0019
(646)455-9182
Fax: (212) 958-2461
hx: (734) 181-9001
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFPS MOTION FOR. .. .
CHILD SUPPORT
REQUIRING IMMEDIATE RESUMPtiON
,OF PAYMENT IN ACCORD WITH EXISTING CHILO SUPPORT OBOER
CRCDI'fANo
Entered:July.Qk, 2011
On Aprl 12, 2011, Plaintiff Peter Klamka flied a Motion to Compel
Defendant's Statemenls Regarding Accounting of Child SUpport Credit&'. In
that motion, Mr. Klamka's concerns centered on a show~cause order IssUed
by the Friend of the Court (FOC), whole records showed him to. be more
than $85,000 iri arre•s on child support. In addition, FOC policy. Is that H
cannot address the proofs of payment offered by a payer Who aleges that
payments were In fact made to the payee, even If not through the
FOC/MiSDU as ordered. Instead, K wll honor only acknewlledgrrients by
1he payee that credit should be Issued to the payer. Accordingly, Mr.
Klamka Wanted this Court to order Defendant Shondela MortDn to
ac~nowledge the chHd support credit due to him
The motion was heard on April 26, 2011. The Court cancelled the
upcoming FOC show-cause hearing and stated that tt would ·work with the
FOC to detennine the actual arrearage. It also a&ked that, tn keeping wi~
the response that Ms. Morton's counsel filed lo Mr. Ktamka'a motiQn, .Ms.'
Morton submit her own accounting for chUd support payments
fe(;elved.
.
.
1
I '.
l! 1f' . 8: l!t.ll
Of Fit[ OF JU06[ FIAICIS
No. 6692:
~
3
The Court ultimately submitted Mr. Klamka's mo11on, Ms. Morton's
response, Mr. Klamka's reply, and Ms. Morton's materials a~bmllted In
response to lhe Judge's req~s~ induding all alfachments, to the FOC. -In
addition, judicial staff reviewed the documents as well. as relevant priOr
orders of this Court In tandem with the FOC's Deputy Administrator, which
~rmflted lha calcUlation
of the amount to be credited to Mr. Klamka.
'1.
On Juntt 29, 2011, the FOC issued a memorandum to this Judge:. which
was copfed to Mr. KJamka and to Ms. Morton's counsel. The memo
explained the credit to which Mr. Klamka was entitled, based on Ms.
Morton's acknowledgements.
The Court adopts that analysis as correct, especially because the Court's
own review indicates that the few points of dispute between the parties are
resolved by statements In this Court's own prior orders regarding. stOpped
checks and reduced payments.
Accordingly, the CQurt finds that Mr. Klamka was properly credited for
$62,263 of the amount previously shown on FOC records as ;meatagEt&.
However, the Court also finds that Mr. Klamka's monthly chid .support
obligation continueS to be $3600 per month under this court's extant ohild ·
support order, and that he has not paid 1n accord with that. order slnoe •
October 2010, at which time he made only partial payment. Accordingly,
as of June 29, 2011, Mr. Klamka's arrearages were $33,367.21, with same
$28,800 (exdusJve of fees) incurred from November 1. 2010 onward. As of
today's date, the arrearages total $36,988.21 of which $32,421 (including
fees) has been incurred since November 1, 2010, with another $3600 due
as of August t. 2011.
The Court speciffcally note& that Michigan continues to have enfo~nl
responsibility for its child support orders, and that the Wash•naw COUnty
FOC is bound to continue Its enforcement efforts against Mr. Klamka until it
Is Informed that a Court in another State has taken jurisdiction over the
·
child supporl case. 1
.- ,_',:~- 1
• ·: 1
To this Court's knoWledge, neither one of the naftles has taken the necess1ry steps to
register tt;s Court's ohlld IU~~-aiiQ$f'5JiO whla1WOiilCfiiQW moai!Oirllil
bjl~ if 8itfMi partywantSihit, despite the fad that d pllftles, fnckdng the
dtld, have resided melltter Texas or New Yolk for rnany months. It Is this c;:ourt's ·
belief that the language of ttle lecleral Fdl Fallb and Credit for Child Support Orders N;t
2
....
•,
..
OttiCl Of
JUOG~ ~IAICIS
No.6691 .P. 4
The C9urt is further determined that Its orders must not be disregarded.
· Accordingly, Mr. Klamka shall immediately m.ume paying his monthly child
support obligation of $3600, and the FOC shall resume.lts enforcement
efforts regarding his arrearages once the credit has been .properly applied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nancy c:Whaeler, Family OMsfon Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
ht '~~
M,
PI~
I certify thai on 7
IIWVtd coplti of CIW Order crated f
upon
incl
upon c:ounaeJ fo~ by trst claa$ rail to the addre&n• llsled In the heacllnv and uPOR
-!«-~··
"'4-lllodtna.-lng.
:1_4,
II,IC
I
. .
.....
. / (fFCCSOA), 28 USC 17388, does not permit ttis Court lo modify orders bae8Use,
:~. ~=~co=.~~;~~u;,_;;t~~!-~~on
3