I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. The initial point of analysis in any family law case is whether the court has the power to hear a case. Power is derived from subject matter jurisdiction.

B. Always draw the distinction between personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to render a money judgment over a person) and subject matter jurisdiction (the power of a court to entertain the case).

C. Fairness is irrelevant

1. Always ask two questions:

a. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction, and,
b. Does the court have personal jurisdiction?
c. Answer these questions yes or no. If the answer is yes, the subject matter jurisdiction must come from some statute. Some specific source of statutory law must have given the court the power to hear the case.

D. Once subject matter jurisdiction is observed, the inquiry turns to whether this jurisdiction has been granted conditionally or if there is any restriction on it.

E. There are a variety of statutes in the family code that provide the court with subject matter jurisdiction. For example, section 2650 authorizes the court to divide the separate property interests of the parties.

II. Domicile Requirement

A. At least one party to California dissolution must be domiciled in California. Only one is necessary, however.

B. Domicile equals physical presence plus intention to remain indefinitely.

C. The state has the power to exercise jurisdiction over an individual who is physically present in its territory. This primarily has to do with personal jurisdiction (see below).

III. Residence

A. At least one party must have been a resident of the state of California for at least 6 months, and in the county in which the divorce is proceeding for 3 months prior to filing.

IV. Divisible Divorce

A. It is possible for the court to render decisions on part of a case that has already been decided as to some other part in some other jurisdiction. For example, if another jurisdiction has decided a case, California will still have subject matter jurisdiction to decide some other aspect of that case that has not been previously decided.

V. Collateral Attack

A. Sometimes, a party will be denied the right to object to subject matter jurisdiction.

1. If the court exercises jurisdiction it doesn't have, and both parties go along with that, then they cannot later object.

VI. The Sherrer Doctrine: if both parties participate in a dissolution that the court actually has no jurisdictional authority over, they will be treated as if the court did have jurisdiction.

VII. UDRA (Uniform Divorce Recognition Act)

A. If California residents go out of the state of California for a divorce, and do not otherwise meet the UDRA requirements, that dissolution will not be recognized in California. For example, a South Dakota dissolution by California residents will not be recognized in California pursuant to the terms of the UDRA.

VIII. Representative Cases:

A. IRMO Dick

1. Wife files for legal separation. Husband files for dissolution. Husband is in the state on a tourist visa from Canada.

2. Court rules that residence, as a matter of policy, should not depend on national visa policies and the like. If H is here and has established a residence here, that will be good enough to allow the court to exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dissolution, regardless of the initial reason for being here.

B. IRMO Gray (Divisible Divorce)

1. It is okay to split the divorce case into different pieces in different jurisdictions. Husband can't dissolve the status of his marriage in the District of Columbia because he is in contempt and their rules prohibit that. He moves to California, establishes residency, and seeks status dissolution. The request is granted. Court rules that once the jurisdictional requirements are met the status dissolution cannot be denied.

C. IRMO Purnel (Preemption)

1. Mother is an American Indian and contends that her tribal trust income is off-limits as a matter of tribal and federal law. The federal law provides that the tribal trust money cannot be attached. She claims preemption of jurisdiction pursuant to this federal law.

2. The trial court enters a child support order against mother, citing that it is not saying where the money should come from to satisfy the order. Rather, simply that the money exists and creates an ability on mother's part to pay the money.

3. This is affirmed by the appellate court. The distinction is that the trial court did not indicate that the trust money had to be used to satisfy the child support award. Note that the trust money is, in fact, not available for execution. However, once it is in mother's hands, then it would be.

D. IRMO Zaragoza (Waiver)

1. In this case, another jurisdiction (Nevada) not only had started the case (like Gray) but it finished it as well, and granted the dissolution of marriage. Nevertheless, mother relocated to California and filed a California divorce case. Husband did not say anything about the Nevada case until the time of trial in the California case, at which point he raised the Nevada dissolution as a bar to the action.

2. The appellate court found that the husband had waived his jurisdictional objection because he did not raise it in his initial filing. Any legitimate subject matter objection must be made right away, or it is deemed waived.

3. Note that this is contra to the general rule in law school that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Under current modern law, it can, and sometimes is.