NEVADA SUPREME COURT DECLARES COSTA RICA NOT TO BE A STATE FOR PURPOSES OF UIFSA
On January 30, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its advance opinion in Gonzalez-Alpizar v. Griffith in which the court declared that Costa Rica would not be considered a “state” for purposes of enforcing support orders under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”). In Gonzalez-Alpizar the mother obtained default spousal and child support order against the father in Costa Rica in 2005. In obtaining the support order, the mother failed to advise the Costa Rican court of the existence of a premarital agreement between the parties. When the mother attempted to enforce the 2005 support order in Nevada through UIFSA, she was prevented from doing so.
UIFSA is codified in Nevada as NRS Chapter 130 and governs multiple jurisdiction involvement in child support issues. Its purpose is to ensure that only one child support order is effective at any given time. Under NRS 130.10179(2), the term “state” is defined to include a foreign country if one of the following three conditions is met: (1) the country has been declared to be a foreign reciprocating country under federal law, (2) the state’s attorney general has declared the country a “state” because it has reciprocal provisions ensuring the enforcement of support orders, or (3) the country has enacted law or established procedures for enforcing support orders that are substantially similar to those under UIFSA.
Remarkably, the Nevada Supreme Court in Gonzalez-Alpizar determined that Costa Rica met none of the three criteria for being a “state” under UIFSA. First, Costa Rica has not been declared a foreign reciprocating country under federal law. Second, Nevada has never recognized Costa Rica as a “state” for purposes of UIFSA enforcement. Finally, the mother produced no evidence that Costa Rica has enacted procedures for interjurisdictional enforcement similar to those under UIFSA. Because the mother did not establish that Costa Rica was a “state,” the court concluded that the 2005 Costa Rican support order was not enforceable under UIFSA.
Even though the support order was not enforceable under UIFSA, the court did consider whether the order might be enforceable under the doctrine of comity. This doctrine is a principle of courtesy by which “the courts of one jurisdiction may give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect.” Mianecki v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 99 Nev. 93, 98, 658 P.2d 422, 424-25 (1983).
In Gonzalez-Alpizar, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted Section 482 of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States and noted that Nevada courts will refuse to recognize a judgment or order of a sister state if there is “a showing of fraud, lack of due process, or lack of jurisdiction in the rendering state.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573, 747 P.2d 230, 231 (1987).
Interestingly, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the Costa Rican spousal support order was not enforceable in Nevada under the doctrine of comity because the mother had failed to disclose the existence of a valid premarital agreement to the Costa Rican court at the time it issued the order. However, the failure to disclose the premarital agreement would not necessarily prevent the district court from enforcing the child support order because the agreement contained no provision concerning child support. Thus, the Nevada Supreme Court remanded the issue to the district court to make appropriate findings under the Restatement and to determine whether the child support portion of the 2005 Costa Rican support order should be enforced as a matter of comity.