As family law practitioners, we are often faced with applying the terms of one or more uniform acts to our cases. Whether it involves an issue of child custody jurisdiction, enforcement of a family support order, interpretation of a premarital agreement, or one or more of a myriad of factual circumstances, the uniform law plays an important role in virtually every family lawyer’s day. Indeed, more than twenty uniform acts directly relate to the practice of family law. Some of those acts, such as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) have been universally or nearly universally adopted, while others, such as the Uniform Collaborative Law Act, have been adopted by far fewer states. For a complete list of uniform acts that directly relate to family law, see page 7 of this issue.

In addition to those family law-related uniform acts, other uniform acts, such as the Uniform Commercial Code or Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA), may affect other aspects of our client’s lives. This article offers an approach to using uniform laws as a part of everyday practice and to identifying and citing to authorities to support your analysis.

Principles for Construing Uniform Act Provisions

It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that, where a statute is clear and unambiguous, a reviewing court must interpret the statute according to the plain meaning of its terms without resorting to aids of statutory construction. Howe v. Retirement Bd. of Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 29 N.E.3d 503, 514–15 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). Past the plain meaning, however, some construing is required, and, in the context of uniform acts, that will involve citation to cases that interpret them. This kind of analysis does not necessarily fall within the ambit of statutory construction, but, rather, takes into account the public policy underlying adoption of uniform acts for “their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.” Tit. 1 Pa. Stat. and ConS. Stat. ann § 1927 (2016). Courts interpreting a uniform act should “give consideration ‘to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.’” See State v. P.L.O., ___ P.3d ___, 280 Or. App. 292, ___ (2016), citing or. rev. Stat. § 109.831 for the proposition that cases interpreting the UCCJEA should do so in a manner that promotes uniformity among the states that have adopted the UCCJEA. “Decisions of other courts offer persuasive support when questions of the interpretation of uniform laws arise.” Brown v. Arp & Hammond Hardware Co. , 141 P.3d 673, 680 (Wy. 2006). Case law in many states and federal courts provides that when interpreting a uniform act “intended as a uniform law across the fifty states, the court shall consider the decisions of other states and federal courts interpreting the same.” In re Ajax Integrated, LLC, 554 Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 568, 578 n. 12 (2016); see also Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Public Schl. Dist. No. 161, 803 N.W.2d 827, 830 (N.D. 2011).

Other states have adopted statutes that open the door for courts to consider the laws of other states that have adopted the same uniform act. These statutes may be universal in scope, such as Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes section 1927, which provides: “Construction of uniform laws. Statutes uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.” Yet other statutes are limited to a particular uniform act. See, e.g., Colo. rev. Sta. § 18-18-604, which references the Uniform Controlled Substances Act only.

Whether a uniform act has been adopted by all states or a majority or minority of the states may contribute to whether a cohesive body of law develops. In Doe v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 3d. 722, 729 (E.D. Mich. 2015), the court observed that

[d]efendants argued during the motion hearing that, in addition to the state’s interest in public safety, the retroactive application of the Internet reporting requirement contributes to the state’s interest in national uniformity of sex offender registration laws.… Defendants have not cited to case law suggesting that contributing to the national uniformity of laws is “a significant governmental interest,… particularly where an apparent minority of jurisdictions have adopted the purportedly “uniform” law.

(emphasis added.) While universal adoption of a uniform act is not a predicate to developing a cohesive body of law, there should be some indicia that the law is moving to majority acceptance, according to the district court, before such development takes shape.

The family law practitioner should remain cognizant of the proof requirements of the venue where a case is heard, as many states require, for instance, that proof of foreign law be established on an evidentiary basis. “Before a case has been fully tried, courts can permit parties to brief, further brief, or submit evidence on questions of foreign law.” In re Lyondell Chemical Co., 543 Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 428, 444 (2016).

Legislative History: A Major Source of Interpretive Language

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC or the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) maintains a website with useful information on each uniform act. See http://www.uniformlaws.org/Acts.aspx. The opening page includes an alphabetical listing of all the uniform acts and provides the title, category of applicable law, and a downloadable “enactment kit” for each act. The title of each uniform act is a link to a webpage dedicated to that particular uniform act. Each of these webpages is divided into seven sections. These include a description of the particular uniform act, ULC staff contact information, and a legislative enactment map showing which states have adopted the uniform act.

A link to the final version of each act plus comments is provided (see links entitled “Final Act”). Comments to a uniform act are often helpful in determining the scope of the act. For example, the comment to section 6 of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act requires certain proofs before a premarital agreement can be enforced, implicitly at a final hearing, which underscores the argument that certain provisions of a premarital agreement regarding, for example, support or counsel fees, cannot be enforced on a pendente lite basis. Other information may also be provided, including, for example, drafts of the final versions. See, e.g., the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act, http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Family Law Arbitration Act.

Amendments are also offered. For example, the 2008 amendments and a redlined version of the 2015 revisions are offered for the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The evolution of any given provision can often be easily traced over time. What is added or deleted from a particular uniform act is relevant to discerning intent. Whether a particular state has adopted the amendments and revisions to a uniform act sheds light on ULC drafters’ intent, as well as on the intent of state legislators who make changes in a uniform act as they adopt it at the state level. See Amberlynn Curry, The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act and its Variations Throughout the States, 23 J. am. aCad. matrim. law 355 (2010). “In the interpretation of statutory provisions the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, applies.” See Kubican v. The Tavern, LLC, 752 S.E.2d 299, 305 (W. Va. 2013), where the West Virginia Supreme Court determined that the liability limits in the ULLCA apply only to the acts of persons acting as a member or manager of the LLC, but not to acts that were not within the capacity of a member or manager.

A Legislative Information Kit is also supplied for each act. These kits may include additional links to a:

• Legislative Facts Sheet, which includes the origins of the particular act, a description of the act, endorsements, enactments, pending bills to adopt the act (introductions), and staff information;

• ULC white paper entitled “Why States Should Adopt [a particular uniform act]”;

• Legislative Enactment Kit, which includes, among other things, supporting documentation, articles, and correspondence and the like of persons and entities that have endorsed the particular uniform act; and

• summary of the particular uniform act.

Legislative tracking information is also supplied. It may include links to bills and other information about state legislatures’ efforts to enact a uniform act. “Drafting History” is an additional link provided. The link to “committee/resources” opens a page that often includes links to the direct doings of each particular drafting committee. These may include substantive research memos relative to a particular uniform act, drafting committee meeting memos, minutes of meetings, meeting agendas, reporter memos, and meeting summaries, etc., which provide insight into the drafting of a uniform act.

Not all pages include similar information for all uniform acts. For example, the Uniform Disposition of Community Property Rights at Death Act does not include such committee information.

Conclusion

A more mobile society and an expanding suburban sprawl are blurring traditional state and regional boundaries and increasing the need for uniform laws in all areas of our lives, including family law. The general purpose behind any uniform act is to promote a cohesive body of law in a particular subject area among the various states that have adopted the uniform act. As the states adopt more and more uniform acts, effective advocacy often depends on educating a court about a particular act that is national in scope. Citation to the case law of other states that have adopted the same uniform act is encouraged for the sake of forging a cohesive body of law interpreting a uniform act. Litigants in different states that have adopted the same uniform act will then have a more reasonable expectation of how the uniform act will be applied, which also reduces forum shopping. Additionally, the plethora of information on the ULC website provides uniform acts’ legislative histories, which may be relevant to construing provisions of a uniform act in court. The ULC has made this information readily available, and it can effectively be relied upon to present an argument about the uniform law. FA