2015 IL App (1st) 132345
FOURTH DIVISION May 14, 2015
No. 1-13-2345
In re MARRIAGE OF MALETA ROBINSON, f/k/a ) Maleta Marrionneaux-Willis, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) and ) No. 11 D 10726 ) DEANGELO M. WILLIS, ) Honorable ) Mark J. Lopez, Respondent-Appellant, ) Judge Presiding. )
JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Howse and Cobbs concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In this appeal, we are called upon to address the applicability of the Federal Uniformed
Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (FUSFSPA) (10 U.S.C. § 1408 (2006)) to the
modification of an out-of-state divorce judgment dividing a former military member's pension.
Petitioner Maleta Robinson (Maleta) and respondent DeAngelo M. Willis (DeAngelo), a former
member of the United States Marine Corps, divorced in Michigan in 2009. As part of the consent
judgment entered by the Michigan court, Maleta received 25% of DeAngelo's military pension.
Maleta then moved to Illinois and sought to register the Michigan judgment in Cook County. After
DeAngelo did not appear in Cook County, the circuit court registered the Michigan order and
entered an order dividing DeAngelo's military retirement pay. DeAngelo filed a motion to vacate
that order, alleging that the Illinois circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The circuit
court denied DeAngelo's motion and entered another order dividing DeAngelo's pension. No. 1-13-2345
¶2 DeAngelo appeals, asserting that the Illinois circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction to
divide his pension under FUSFSPA, which empowers state courts to divide military retirement pay
in divorce proceedings. We agree that FUSFSPA applied to the circuit court's actions in this case
and that the trial court erred in determining that DeAngelo consented to personal jurisdiction. We
vacate the trial court's order dividing DeAngelo's military pension and remand for an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether DeAngelo was a resident or domiciliary of Illinois under FUSFSPA.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Maleta and DeAngelo married in 1990 and had three children. They resided together in
Macomb, Michigan, during their marriage. DeAngelo filed for divorce in 2007 in Michigan.
¶5 On January 21, 2009, the circuit court of Macomb County, Michigan, entered a consent
judgment of divorce. As part of that judgment, the Michigan court awarded Maleta 25% "of the
marital portion of [DeAngelo's] military pension and retirement benefits." (Emphasis in original.)
The court defined "[t]he marital portion *** as the portion of benefits accumulated from the date of
the marriage until the entry of this Judgment."
¶6 After the judgment was entered, Maleta moved to Chicago with their two younger children,
while DeAngelo moved to Virginia with their oldest child. On June 1, 2010, DeAngelo retired
from active duty and began to collect his military pension. In the same month, DeAngelo moved to
Georgia.
¶7 On November 7, 2011, Maleta filed a petition to register the Michigan judgment in the
circuit court of Cook County. Maleta asserted that neither she nor DeAngelo resided in Michigan
and asked that the Michigan judgment be registered in Illinois "for the purposes of enforcement."
Maleta served DeAngelo with the petition.
-2- No. 1-13-2345
¶8 On September 25, 2012, while her request to register the Michigan judgment was still
pending, Maleta moved for a rule to show cause and sanctions, alleging that DeAngelo failed to
comply with the Michigan court's order regarding his military pension. Maleta stated that
DeAngelo had refused to pay her the 25% share of his pension as required by the Michigan divorce
judgment. Maleta asked that the Illinois circuit court require DeAngelo to pay her the "25% share
of all his monthly pension benefits" and 9% interest.
¶9 Although he had been served, DeAngelo did not appear to contest the registration of the
Michigan judgment or file a responsive pleading to Maleta's motion. Accordingly, on October 2,
2012, the court granted Maleta's request to register the Michigan judgment.
¶ 10 On November 21, 2012, the court enjoined the United States Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (USDFAS) from providing DeAngelo with his pension benefits "until further
order of the Court." The court also enjoined DeAngelo "from transferring, encumbering, or
receiving any lump sum payments or otherwise modifying his pension benefits from [US]DFAS
without leave of this Court." The court ordered USDFAS to send "all of [DeAngelo's] future
pension benefit payments" to Maleta's attorney, payable to DeAngelo, "until further order of [the]
Court."
¶ 11 On March 1, 2013, the court entered an order entitled, "Military Retired Pay Division
Order." The order stated that it was being "entered incident to" the Michigan divorce judgment.
The order also stated that the court had jurisdiction over DeAngelo "by reason of his domicile in
the territorial jurisdiction of the Court during the divorce proceedings." The court found that
Maleta was entitled "to a portion of Respondent's United States military retired pay," and awarded
Maleta "25 percent of [DeAngelo's] disposable military retired pay."
-3- No. 1-13-2345
¶ 12 On March 29, 2013, DeAngelo filed a motion pursuant to section 2-1301 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1301 (West 2010)) seeking to vacate the circuit court's March 1,
2013 order. DeAngelo asserted that the circuit court of Cook County lacked personal jurisdiction
over him under FUSFSPA because he did not reside in Illinois or maintain a domicile in Illinois.
DeAngelo acknowledged that he purchased and registered a car in Illinois but asserted that he
bought the car solely for his daughter to use while she attended college in Illinois.
¶ 13 In her response to DeAngelo's motion, Maleta asserted that the Illinois court was required
to afford the Michigan divorce judgment full faith and credit. Maleta stated that the March 1, 2013
order "served only to implement the Michigan Judgment as it related to its award of 25% of
[DeAngelo's] military pension to [Maleta]." Maleta also asserted that DeAngelo had sufficient
contact with Illinois to justify the Illinois circuit court's exercise of jurisdiction. Maleta noted that
DeAngelo listed his address as "5824 North Ridge, Chicago, Illinois" to USDFAS, had registered a
vehicle with the Illinois Secretary of State at the same address, and had an adult child and a minor
child residing in Illinois. Maleta attached copies of DeAngelo's retiree account statement from
USDFAS from June 2010 and his 2013 Illinois vehicle registration card, each of which listed his
address as "5824 N Ridge, Chicago, IL 60660." Maleta also argued that the circuit court had
personal jurisdiction over DeAngelo under section 2-209(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure
(735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(9) (West 2010)) because DeAngelo "fail[ed] to support a *** former spouse
who ha[d] continued to reside" in Illinois.
¶ 14 In his reply, DeAngelo argued that section 2-209(a)(9) was inapplicable, because the
award of 25% of his pension was not "spousal support" but, rather, a division of property.
DeAngelo also stated that the Chicago address he listed with USDFAS and the Illinois Secretary of
State was a temporary address he used while he was moving from Virginia to Georgia in 2010.
-4- No. 1-13-2345
¶ 15 On June 21, 2013, the circuit court denied DeAngelo's motion to vacate. The court found
that DeAngelo "ha[d] 'minimum contacts' with the State of Illinois sufficient that this court has
personal jurisdiction over [him]" and that DeAngelo "waived any objection to lack of personal
jurisdiction by raising a substantive issue in this matter (whether [Maleta was] entitled to 25% or
20% of [the] marital portion of [the] pension)." On the same day, the trial court also entered
another order entitled, "Military Retired Pay Division Order," which was identical to the March 1,
2013 order of the same name except in one respect: it "awarded [Maleta] 20 percent of
[DeAngelo's] disposable military retired pay," instead of 25%. Defendant appeals, arguing that the
trial court should have declined jurisdiction over this matter due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 Maleta has failed to file a response brief in this case. But we will not summarily reverse the
circuit court's judgment. Rather, we elect to address the merits of DeAngelo's appeal because the
record is simple, and we can resolve the issue presented to us without Maleta's brief. First Capitol
Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976).
¶ 18 The trial court below found two bases for jurisdiction over this matter. First, the court ruled
that DeAngelo had " 'minimum contacts' " with Illinois. Second, the trial court found that
DeAngelo waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by raising a substantive argument
concerning the court's order. Both issues require us first to determine whether federal
law—namely FUSFSPA—controls the jurisdictional question, or whether our state's long-arm
personal-jurisdiction statute applies.
¶ 19 A. Whether FUSFSPA Applies to This Case
-5- No. 1-13-2345
¶ 20 Whether FUSFSPA is applicable to this action is a question of law we review de novo.
Performance Marketing Ass'n v. Hamer, 2013 IL 114496, ¶ 12. In determining the reach of a
federal statute, we begin with its plain language. Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 588 (1989).
¶ 21 Congress passed FUSFSPA in response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in
McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 232-33 (1981), which held that, under the supremacy clause, a
state court could not divide a military retiree's retirement pay in a divorce. Abrogating the holding
of McCarty, FUSFSPA grants state courts the authority to "treat disposable retired pay payable to
a [military] member *** either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and
his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court." 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1)
(2006). The types of "court orders" subject to FUSFSPA include, in pertinent part, "final decree[s]
of divorce" and "court ordered *** property settlement[s] incident to such *** decree[s]," which
provide for a "division of property" and "provide[ ] for the payment of an amount *** from the
disposable retired pay of a [former military] member to the spouse or former spouse of that
member." 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(2)(B)(iii), (C) (2006). Additionally, FUSFSPA provides that "an
out-of-State modification" of a "court order" is unenforceable "unless the court issuing that
[modification] has jurisdiction in the manner specified in" section 1408(c)(4). 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408(d)(7)(A) (2006). "[A]n out-of-State modification" is defined as a court order that "modifies
a previous court order under this section" and "is issued by a court of a State other than the State of
the court that issued the previous court order." 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(7)(B) (2006).
¶ 22 The orders entered by the trial court below fall within the plain language of FUSFSPA. The
trial court did more than simply enforce a judgment from a sister state. Each of the trial court's
orders substantively ruled on the division of property and, in the process, modified the Michigan
court order. The first, entered on March 1, 2013, stated that it was being entered "incident to" the
-6- No. 1-13-2345
Michigan divorce judgment but "awarded" Maleta "25 percent of [DeAngelo's] disposable military
retired pay." The second, entered on June 21, 2013, was otherwise identical to the first but awarded
Maleta 20% of DeAngelo's "disposable retirement pay." By contrast, the Michigan divorce
judgment had only awarded Maleta 25% of the "marital portion" of DeAngelo's military retirement
pay. Both of the Illinois court's orders modified the Michigan court's division of DeAngelo's
retirement pay—the first by expanding the division from the "marital portion" of DeAngelo's
retirement pay to DeAngelo's "disposable retirement pay," and the second by changing the award
from 25% to 20%.
¶ 23 Accordingly, we find that the trial court orders, beyond merely enforcing a sister court's
judgment, were "out-of-State modification[s]" of a "court order" under FUSFSPA. 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408(a)(2), (d)(7)(A) (2006). As such, they could only be enforced if the trial court met the
jurisdictional standard of section 1408(c)(4). 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(4), (d)(7)(A) (2006). Without
question, FUSFSPA governs this action.
¶ 24 B. Whether FUSFSPA Preempts State Law
¶ 25 Having found FUSFSPA applicable, we must next consider which statute—federal, state,
or both—governs the question of personal jurisdiction. This, too, is a question of law subject to de
novo review. Performance Marketing, 2013 IL 114496, ¶ 12.
¶ 26 Our state's personal-jurisdiction statute, often referred to as the Illinois long-arm statute, is
broad in scope. See 735 ILCS 5/2-209 (West 2010). Our statute delineates 14 different acts that
would submit a party to personal jurisdiction in this state and describes several characteristics of an
individual or business that would subject it to personal jurisdiction. See 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a), (b),
(b-5) (West 2010). It goes further still in subsection (c), broadly providing that an Illinois court
“may also exercise jurisdiction on any other basis now or hereafter permitted by the Illinois
-7- No. 1-13-2345
Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.” 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c) (West 2010); see
Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909, ¶¶ 29-30. The limits of personal jurisdiction under due-process
principles have become known as the "minimum contacts" test, which begins any analysis of the
Illinois long-arm statute. See Russell, 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 36 ("This court recognizes the 'minimum
contacts' test as the threshold issue in any personal jurisdiction challenge in Illinois.").
¶ 27 FUSFSPA, in contrast, contains a personal-jurisdictional provision that is far more limited
in scope. FUSFSPA limits the reach of a state court to retirees who reside in the state, are
domiciled in the state, or consent to the court's jurisdiction. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(4) (2006). There is
no question that, on the question of personal jurisdiction over matters relating to the division of
military retirement pay in divorce proceedings, federal law conflicts with our state's long-arm
statute. A state law that conflicts with federal law is preempted to the extent of the conflict.
Performance Marketing, 2013 IL 114496, ¶ 14. We hold that, to the extent that Illinois's long-arm
statute conflicts with the FUSFSPA jurisdictional standard, our state law must yield to the
controlling federal law. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2; Performance Marketing, 2013 IL 114496, ¶ 14.
¶ 28 While this appears to be a question of first impression in Illinois, this conclusion finds
support in every case to have considered the question across the country. The United States
Supreme Court, without expressly so holding, seemed to take it for granted that section 1408(c)(4)
of FUSFSPA "pre-empts state law." Mansell, 490 U.S. at 591 (noting that purpose of FUSFSPA
jurisdictional limitations was to "prevent[ ] spouses from forum shopping for a State with
favorable divorce laws"). Many other courts directly confronting the issue have likewise held that
section 1408(c)(4) of FUSFSPA preempted their state's long-arm jurisdictional statutes. In re
Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734, 738 n.9 (Colo. 1992); Petters v. Petters, 560 So. 2d 722, 725
(Miss. 1990); Davis v. Davis, 284 P.3d 23, 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012); Sparks v. Caldwell, 723 P.2d
-8- No. 1-13-2345
244, 245 (N.M. 1986); Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1118 (Pa. 2001); Pender v. Pender, 945
S.W.2d 395, 396-97 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997); In re Marriage of Hattis, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1162, 1167
(Cal. Ct. App. 1987); Mortenson v. Mortenson, 409 N.W.2d 20, 22 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). We
hold that FUSFSPA's stricter requirements for personal jurisdiction control in this case.
¶ 29 C. Whether Personal Jurisdiction Exists Under FUSFSPA
¶ 30 Having found that FUSFSPA, and FUSFSPA alone, governs the question of personal
jurisdiction, we next consider whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over DeAngelo in
this case. Again, FUSFSPA permits a state court to divide a military member's retirement pay if
that court has jurisdiction over the member "by reason of (A) his residence, other than because of
military assignment, in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, (B) his domicile in the territorial
jurisdiction of the court, or (C) his consent to the jurisdiction of the court." 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(4)
(2006).
¶ 31 The trial court articulated two reasons for finding that it had personal jurisdiction over
DeAngelo. First, it held that DeAngelo had " 'minimum contacts' " with Illinois. As we have noted
above, that finding is relevant only to an analysis of personal jurisdiction under our state long-arm
statute. 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c) (West 2010); Russell, 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 36. It has no place in a
discussion of personal jurisdiction under the applicable federal law.
¶ 32 Second, the trial court found that DeAngelo "waived any objection to lack of personal
jurisdiction by raising a substantive issue in this matter (whether Maleta is entitled to 25% or 20%
of marital portion of pension)." It is not clear to us whether the trial court was referring to the third
basis for jurisdiction under FUSFSPA—that DeAngelo "consent[ed] to the jurisdiction of the
court" (10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(4) (2006))—or whether the trial court was referencing Illinois law.
-9- No. 1-13-2345
Ultimately, we do not see a difference between the two in our resolution of this issue, because we
find that DeAngelo did not consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court in any event.
¶ 33 No Illinois court has interpreted the "consent" required by section 1408(c)(4)(C) of
FUSFSPA. Most courts in other states have held that a party impliedly consents to jurisdiction
under FUSFSPA where he or she waives a challenge to the court's personal jurisdiction under state
law. E.g., Booker, 833 P.2d at 740; Gowins v. Gowins, 466 So. 2d 32, 34-35 (La. 1985); Pierce v.
Pierce, 2012-CA-01966-SCT (¶22) (Miss. 2014); Davis v. Davis, 284 P.3d 23, 27 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2012); Judkins v. Judkins, 441 S.E.2d 139, 140 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994); Seeley v. Seeley, 690 S.W.2d
626, 628 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985); Blackson v. Blackson, 579 S.E.2d 704, 712 (Va. Ct. App. 2003); In
re Marriage of Peck, 920 P.2d 236, 239 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996); Kildea v. Kildea, 420 N.W.2d 391,
394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). Others have suggested that a defendant must affirmatively state his or
her "consent" to jurisdiction. See In re Marriage of Akins, 932 P.2d 863, 867-68 (Colo. App.
1997); Davis, 284 P.3d at 26-27 (recognizing disagreement and collecting cases).
¶ 34 We do not need to pick a side here, because under any view of DeAngelo's actions, he did
not "consent" to jurisdiction. Under Illinois law, a party does not waive a challenge to a court's
personal jurisdiction if the party challenges the court's jurisdiction before filing a motion or other
responsive pleading. 735 ILCS 5/2-301(a) (West 2010); Cardenas Marketing Network, Inc. v.
Pabon, 2012 IL App (1st) 111645, ¶ 24. DeAngelo undoubtedly challenged the trial court's
personal jurisdiction prior to seeking affirmative relief from the court. His section 2-1301 motion,
his first action in the Illinois proceedings, argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over
him. His subsequent request for a modification to the court's award did not waive his challenge to
the trial court's jurisdiction in this case. Obviously, DeAngelo did not affirmatively state his
- 10 - No. 1-13-2345
consent to jurisdiction, either; he did the precise opposite. Thus, we find that DeAngelo did not
consent to the Illinois court's jurisdiction by requesting affirmative relief or in any other way.
¶ 35 However, Maleta could establish jurisdiction over DeAngelo under FUSFSPA if
DeAngelo were a resident or domiciliary of Illinois. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(4)(A), (B) (2006). While
DeAngelo contends that he maintains his residence and domicile in Georgia, Maleta submitted
some evidence to the contrary. In her response to DeAngelo's section 2-1301 motion, Maleta
included copies of DeAngelo's USDFAS account statement from June 2010 and DeAngelo's 2013
vehicle registration card, both of which indicated that DeAngelo had a Chicago address. DeAngelo
contended that this address was a temporary one he used during his move from Virginia to
Georgia. The trial court never deliberated specifically over these conflicting facts, and we will not
do so for the first time on appeal. Instead, we must remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding
DeAngelo's residence and domicile under FUSFSPA. See Viktron Limited Partnership v. Program
Data Inc., 326 Ill. App. 3d 111, 116 (2001) (where evidence regarding personal jurisdiction
conflicts, reviewing court must remand for evidentiary hearing).
¶ 36 We recognize that, in its March 1, 2013 order, the trial court stated that it had jurisdiction
over DeAngelo "by reason of his domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court during the
divorce proceedings." We do not regard this finding as conclusive for three reasons. First, the order
references DeAngelo's domicile at the time of the divorce proceedings, which began in 2007 and
ended in January 2009. FUSFSPA's reference to the service member's domicile does not date back
to any point in the past; in its use of the present tense, FUSFSPA requires that the service member
be domiciled in the forum state at the time jurisdiction over that service member is sought—in this
case, November 2011, when Maleta filed her petition to register the Michigan decree in Illinois. 10
U.S.C. § 1408(c)(4)(B) (2006) (court may not divide service member's pension "unless the court
- 11 - No. 1-13-2345
has jurisdiction over the member by reason of *** his domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the
court"); see also Mortenson, 409 N.W.2d at 23; Tarvin v. Tarvin, 187 Cal. App. 3d 56, 61 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1986) (past domicile or residency in forum state is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under
section 1408(c)(4)). Second, the trial court entered that order before DeAngelo had filed his
section 2-1301 motion challenging the court's jurisdiction under FUSFSPA. The trial court had not
been presented with the conflicting evidence regarding DeAngelo's domicile and lacked the
benefit of adversarial presentation on that issue. Finally, in the court's order denying the section
2-1301 motion—the only order under review in this appeal—the court did not reference
DeAngelo's domicile; it merely referenced "minimum contacts" and waiver. Thus, the brief
reference to "domicile" in the March 1, 2013 order does not eliminate the need for an evidentiary
hearing where the court can consider the conflicting evidence and apply the appropriate legal
standard.
¶ 37 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 38 For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court. In order to divide
DeAngelo's military pension, the circuit court was required to have jurisdiction under section
1408(c)(4) of FUSFSPA. The circuit court erred in concluding that DeAngelo had consented to its
jurisdiction by raising a substantive issue after his challenge to the court's personal jurisdiction.
We remand this case to the circuit court for a determination of whether defendant maintained his
residence or domicile in Illinois pursuant to section 1408(c)(4) of FUSFSPA.
¶ 39 Vacated and remanded.
- 12 -