Mason Wayne Morris v. Jasmine Sharell Morris

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-705

MASON WAYNE MORRIS

VERSUS

JASMINE SHARELL MORRIS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NUMBER 278,631
HONORABLE DAVID M. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Charles G.
Fitzgerald, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Michael H. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL H. DAVIS
2017 MacArthur Drive
Building 4, Suite “A”
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
(318) 445-3621
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Mason Wayne Morris

Kenneth A. Doggett, Jr.
DOGGETT LAW FIRM
1100 Martin Luther King Drive
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
(318) 487-4251
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jasmine Sharell Morris

WILSON, Judge.

Jasmine Sharell Morris (Jasmine) appeals the dismissal of her petition for

child custody and petition to modify custody based on the trial court’s finding that

the Circuit Court for the County of DeKalb, State of Alabama, has jurisdiction over

the custody dispute. Mason Wayne Morris (Mason) answered the appeal, asking

that this court amend the trial court’s ruling to grant his exceptions of res judicata

and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

ISSUES

Jasmine asserts that the trial court erred in granting Mason’s motion to dismiss

pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1818 because there were no “simultaneous proceedings” in

Louisiana and Alabama at the time she filed her petition for child custody in the

Ninth Judicial District Court of Louisiana. She further asserts that “Alabama did not

have jurisdiction that substantially conformed with the [Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act,] UCCJEA.”

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under

an abuse of discretion and manifest error standard of review.” Jones v. Cisneros,

20-582, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/7/21), 315 So.3d 959, 962. In the present case, if the

trial court finds that there are simultaneous proceedings in two states, dismissal may

be required by statue. La.R.S. 13:1818. “When a trial court interprets and applies

state statutes, any error that is made would fall under the de novo standard of review.”

Young v. Young, 06-77, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/06), 931 So.2d 541, 547.

III.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Madeline Morris was born on April 20, 2020, in Louisiana. Her parents,

Mason and Jasmine, were not married at the time of Madeline’s birth and did not

live together. Mason and Jasmine married on March 23, 2021, in Fort Polk (now

Fort Johnson), Louisiana. After Madeline’s birth, Mason was deployed to Texas for

nine months and to Kuwait and Qatar for seven months in 2021.

The parties lived together on base after they married, but Mason alleges that

he maintained his domicile in DeKalb County, Alabama, while he was in the

military. Mason and Jasmine separated on April 28, 2023. Prior to the separation,

Madeline had been enrolled in daycare in Alabama for weeks at a time beginning in

July of 2020. Mason left the military in April of 2023 and returned to Alabama.

Jasmine alleges that on May 28, 2023, she brought Madeline to meet Mason’s

mother, Stacey Vaughn, at a halfway point between Alabama and Louisiana with the

agreement that Madeline would be returned to Jasmine in August. Mason allegedly

refused to return Madeline and filed a complaint for divorce in the circuit court of

DeKalb County, Alabama, on August 2, 2023. Jasmine filed a motion to dismiss the

Alabama case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That motion came for hearing

on August 25, 2023, and was denied by judgment signed on August 25, 2023, by

Judge Andrew Hairston (Judge Hairston). A custody hearing was set for December

12, 2023.

Jasmine had an overnight visit with Madeline after the August 25, 2023

hearing, with the understanding that she would return Madeline to Mason’s custody

the next day. Instead, she took the child and returned to Louisiana. Jasmine did not

appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss and did not participate in the custody

hearing, which proceeded as scheduled on December 12, 2023.
2

By judgment signed December 13, 2023, Judge Hairston granted a divorce

from Jasmine and sole legal and physical custody of Madeline to Mason. The

judgment also set out a visitation schedule and ordered Jasmine to pay child support

in the amount of $693.00 per month. On December 20, 2023, Mason filed a petition

seeking to have the Alabama judgment made executory in the Ninth Judicial District

Court for the Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana. In response, Jasmine filed an

opposition and a petition for custody. She alleged that the Alabama court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction because Madeline never resided in Alabama for six

months or longer and that she had not been served with notice of the December 12,

2023 court date. Mason then filed a peremptory exception of res judicata, an

exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a motion to dismiss Jasmine’s

petition for custody. The motion to dismiss alleged that there were simultaneous

proceedings in DeKalb County, Alabama.

Mason’s exceptions and motion to dismiss, as well as Jasmine’s motion to

compel discovery responses, came for hearing on August 27, 2024. On September

9, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment finding that the Alabama court had subject

matter jurisdiction and dismissing both Jasmine’s petition for custody and her

petition to modify custody. 1 The judgment stated that Judge David Michael

Williams (Judge Williams) of the Ninth Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana,

and Judge Hairston had conferred in accordance with La.R.S. 13:1818 and concurred

that DeKalb County, State of Alabama, has subject matter jurisdiction over

Madeline’s custody. The judgment went on to deny Mason’s exceptions of res

judicata and lack of subject matter jurisdiction as moot but noted that said objections

1
On July 23, 2024, Jasmine filed a “Motion to Modify Custody in the Event Louisiana
Recognizes the Alabama Judgment.”
3

may be re-urged at the hearing on Mason’s petition to have the Alabama judgment

made executory.

Jasmine appealed. Mason answered the appeal and asked this court to amend

the judgment to grant his exceptions of res judicata and lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

A hearing on Mason’s petition to make the Alabama judgment executory was

held on September 12, 2024. The transcript of that hearing is contained in the record

of this appeal. The trial court took the matter under advisement. It is unknown

whether the trial court has issued a ruling on that issue, and that matter is not before

this court in the present appeal.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Motion to Dismiss

Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:1818 provides, in part, as follows:

A. Except as otherwise provided in R.S. 13:1816, a court of this state
may not exercise its jurisdiction under this Subpart if, at the time of
the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the
custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state
having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this Act, unless
the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the
other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum
under R.S. 13:1819.

B. Except as otherwise provided in R.S. 13:1816, a court of this state,
before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court
documents and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to
R.S. 13:1821. If the court determines that a child custody
proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having
jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this Act, the court of
this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court
of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction
substantially in accordance with this Act does not determine that the
court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state
shall dismiss the proceeding.

4

Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:1816 deals with temporary emergency jurisdiction

and is not applicable to this case.

Jasmine argues that there were no “simultaneous proceedings” because the

Alabama court issued a final decree on December 12, 2023, concluding the custody

case. She also argues that Alabama did not have jurisdiction that substantially

confirmed with the UCCJEA. Her arguments ignore several key facts. First,

Jasmine excepted to the jurisdiction of the Alabama court in the Alabama

proceedings. When the Alabama court denied her exception, Jasmine did not file an

appeal. However, she had forty-two days from the entry of the judgment on

December 13, 2024, to do so. That means that on December 22, 2024, when she

filed her petition for custody (along with her opposition to Mason’s petition to make

the judgment executory), the Alabama judgment was not yet final. Furthermore,

since Alabama was the first state to make a determination concerning Madeline’s

custody, it has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Ala.Code 1975 § 30-3B-102 and

202. “Judgments awarding custody and support are always subject to modification

and are thus never final.” Pierre v. Pierre, 23-470, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/24),

383 So.3d 1028, 1037, writ denied, 24-366 (La. 4/30/24), 383 So.3d 931. These

facts lead this court to the conclusion that there are simultaneous proceedings under

La.R.S. 13:1818 such that the dismissal of Jasmine’s petition for custody and

petition to modify custody is required by statute.

Second, we cannot simply ignore the fact that Alabama issued an initial custody

decree without any objection or appeal by Jasmine. The UCCJEA imposes

jurisdictional limitations geared toward furthering its stated purposes, which include

“1) avoiding jurisdictional competition among the states; and 2) promoting

resolution of custody disputes by the forum deemed most likely to have the

maximum amount of relevant information regarding the case.” Daigle v. Daigle,
5

21-339, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/23/22), 336 So.3d 616, 619–20. At times, these

jurisdictional limitations “require a court that has general subject matter jurisdiction

to decline to exercise it.” Stelluto v. Stelluto, 05-74, p. 8 (La. 6/29/05), 914 So.2d

34, 39. “Under the express terms of the UCCJEA, Louisiana does not have subject

matter jurisdiction over a custody issue if another state has rendered a child custody

determination.” In re D.C.M., 13-85, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/11/13), 170 So.3d 165,

170, writ denied, 13-1669 (La. 7/17/13), 118 So.3d 1102.

As required by the UCCJEA and La.R.S. 13:1818(B), the Louisiana District

Court Judge conferred with the Alabama District Court Judge, and together they

concluded that Alabama had subject matter jurisdiction over Madeline’s custody.

Judge Williams put the details of his conference with Judge Hairston on the record,

stating: “the first thing that he explained to me is that there was a jurisdictional

challenge already made on behalf of . . . [Jasmine] in which she hired an attorney in

Alabama. They both showed up, appeared, and contested jurisdiction.” Judge

Williams noted that he reviewed the transcripts of the testimony heard by Judge

Hairston. Judge Williams stated that they both agreed that jurisdiction would be

more proper and should remain in Alabama. At the end of the August 27, 2024

hearing, Judge Williams reiterated:

this Court believes that jurisdiction is more proper in Alabama because
. . . that Court heard evidence on jurisdiction. Ms. Morris was present.
She presented evidence. He had an opportunity . . . to review the
witnesses to see their demeanor and to do whatever calculations on time
and make his decision on modicums of truth[] and veracity[.]

Thus, we conclude that the Alabama court has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction

over Madeline’s custody and has not ceded that jurisdiction or determined that

Louisiana would be a more convenient forum. See La.R.S. 13:1815 and Ala.Code

1975 § 30-3B-202.

6

Third, neither Jasmine nor her new attorney made any attempt to get the

December 12, 2024 hearing continued or to appeal the judgment once it was

rendered. Jasmine cannot appeal an Alabama judgment in a Louisiana court, which

is essentially what she seeks to do. The Louisiana court can modify Alabama’s

initial custody determination only if the conditions set forth in La.R.S. 13:1815 are

met. Again, we note that after conferencing, the Alabama court did not cede

jurisdiction, and the Louisiana court agreed that jurisdiction should remain in the

Alabama court.

For these reasons, we conclude that the Louisiana court did not err when it

dismissed Jasmine’s petitions for custody and for modification of custody based on

simultaneous proceedings in the Alabama court, which had exclusive, continuing

jurisdiction over Madeline’s custody.

Answer to Appeal

In his answer to Jasmine’s appeal, Mason asks this court to grant his

exceptions of res judicata and lack of subject matter jurisdiction that were denied as

moot by the trial court. The judgment that is the subject of this appeal specifically

states that Mason may re-urge these exceptions at the hearing on his petition to make

the Alabama judgment executory. That statement creates a bit of a procedural

quagmire. Mason cannot except to his own petition; he can only except to the

petition for custody and motion to modify custody filed by Jasmine.

However, once the trial judge dismissed those petitions pursuant to La.R.S.

13:1818, Mason’s exceptions were moot. “A case is ‘moot’ when a rendered

judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or

effect.” Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Dep’t of Fin., 98-601, p.

8 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1193. Granting Mason’s exceptions of res

judicata and lack of subject matter jurisdiction would have no practical effect
7

because the petition and motion were already dismissed. Therefore, we decline to

grant those exceptions in this appeal.

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for custody

and the motion to modify custody filed on behalf of Jasmine Sharell Morris. Costs

of this appeal are assessed to Appellant, Jasmine Sharell Morris.

AFFIRMED.

8