www.i-864.net

 Work in progress.

• Alabama.

• Alaska.

  • Villars v. Villars, 305 P.3d 321 (Alaska 2013). 

  • Barnett v. Barnett, 238 P.3d 594, 598 (Alaska 2010).

• Arizona.

• Arkansas.

• California.

  • Mullonkal v. Kodiyamplakkil, C085825 (Cal. 3d App. June 29, 2020) (upholding finding that I-864 beneficiary failed to properly plead his enforcement claim in family law court). Discussion available here.

  • Gross v. Gross, E060475 (Cal. App., 4th Dist., 2nd Div. Aug. 6, 2015).

• Colorado.

  • Echon v. Sackett, 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW (D. Col. May 2, 2016) (discovery order).

• Connecticut.

• Delaware.

• Florida.

  • Iannuzzelli v. Lovett, 981 So.2d 557 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (noting that beneficiary-plaintiff was awarded no damages at trial because she had failed to demonstrate “that she ha[d] been unable to sustain herself at 125% of the poverty level since her separation from the marriage”).

• Georgia.

• Hawaii.

• Idaho.

• Illinois.

  • Panchal v. Panchal, 2013 IL App (4th) 120532-U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2013), available at http://bit.ly/2pBRJV5.  

• Indiana.

  • Hajizadeh v. Hajizadeh, 961 N.E.2d 541, (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished decision).

• Iowa.

• Kansas.

  • Matter of Dickerson, 337 P.3d 72 (Kan.App. 2014) (internal citation and quotation omitted). 

  • In re Marriage of Sandhu, 207 P.3d 1067 (Kan. Ct.  App. 2009) (holding that beneficiary had no cause of action due to earnings over 125% of the Poverty Guidelines). 

• Kentucky.

• Louisiana.

• Maine.

• Maryland.

• Massachusetts.

• Michigan.

  • Greenleaf v. Greenleaf, No. 299131 (Mich. Ct. App., Sep. 29, 2011), available at http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2011/092911/49856.pdf (last visited Oct. 18, 2012). 

• Minnesota.

• Mississippi.

• Missouri.

• Montana.

• Nebraska.

• Nevada.

• New Hampshire.

• New Jersey.

  • Fox v. Lincoln Financial Group, 109 A.3d 221 (2015).

  • Choudry v. Choudry, No. A-4476-11T4, 2013 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1856, at *2 n. 1 (N.J. Super A.D. July 9, 2013) (although record did not contain the I-864, the court assessed support obligations based on testimony establishing that the I-864 was executed, and based on the Form as available online).

  • Naik v. Naik, 944 A. 2d 713, 717 (N.J. Super. Ct. A.D., Apr. 24, 2007) (asserting without discussion that  “the sponsored immigrant is expected to engage in gainful employment, commensurate with his or her education, skills, training and ability to work in accordance with the common law duty to mitigate damages”)

• New Mexico.

• New York.

  • Knope v. Knope, 103 A.D.3d 1256 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept. Feb. 8, 2013) (upholding trial court’s denial of non-durational maintenance where beneficiary had failed to prove that an I-864 had been executed).

  • Moody v. Sorokina, 40 A.D.2d 14, 19 (N.Y.S. 2007) (holding that trial court erred in determining I-864 created no private cause of action).  No known appellate case has held to the contrary.  

• North Carolina.

  • Zhu v. Deng, 794 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. 2016) (rejecting argument that Form I-864A was unenforceable due to procedural or substantive unconscionability).

• North Dakota.

• Ohio.

  • Davis v. Davis, No. WD-11-006 (Ohio Ct. App. May 11, 2012), available at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2012/2012-ohio-2088.pdf (last visisted Nov. 12, 2012). 

  • Nasir v. Shah, No. 2:10-cv-01003, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135207, at*15 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2012).

• Oklahoma.

• Oregon.

• [Territory of Puerto Rico].

  • Rojas-Martinez v. Acevedo-Rivera, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56187 (D. P.R. June 8, 2010) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss; holding that I-134, predecessor to I-864, was not an enforceable contract, even though executed after the effective date of IIRAIRA legislation). 

• Pennsylvania.

  • Love v. Love, 33 A. 3d 1268, 1276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (holding that earning capacity could not be imputed to beneficiary, because “[i]t is abundantly clear that the purpose of the Affidavit is to prevent an immigrant spouse from becoming a public charge”).

• Rhode Island.

• South Carolina.

• South Dakota.

• Tennessee.

  • Baines v. Baines, No. E2009-00180-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 761, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2009).

• Texas.

  • Yuryeva v. McManus, No. 01-12-00988-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14419, at *19 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. Nov. 26, 2013) (memo. op.).

  • In re Marriage of Kamali, 356 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Tex. App. Nov. 16 2011) (holding that trial court erred in limiting payments to an “arbitrary” 36-month period). 

  • Varnes v. Varnes, No. 13-08-00448-CV (Tex. App., Apr. 23, 2009) (noting it was undisputed that beneficiary was not entitled to spousal support based on I-864 under either of the two statutory grounds allowed by Texas law) available at  http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/13-08-00448-cv.pdf (last visited Oct. 18, 2012).

• Utah.

• Vermont.

• Virginia.

  • Chavez v. Chavez, Civil No. CL10-6528, 2010 Va. Cir. LEXIS 319 (Va. Cir. Crt. Dec. 1, 2010) (denying beneficiary’s motion for relief pendente lite). 

• Washington.

• West.

• Virginia.

• Wisconsin.

• Wyoming.