
Decision Addresses Child Support Arrears
By Gregg Herman
As it appeared in the
February 9, 2005
Edition of the Wisconsin Law Journal
Any confusion
about Wisconsin law regarding credits for child support arrears might have (finally)
been put to rest, thanks to a recent supreme court decision. In In
re the Paternity of John R. B., 2005 WI 6, the high court affirmed an unpublished
decision of the District II Court of Appeals, holding that an alleged post-judgment
oral agreement between the parties to modify child support is not a defense to
arrears and that retroactive application of Wis.
Stat. § 767.32 (1m) and (1r) does not violate due process.
First,
a little history. Prior to 1993, a trial court had discretion to forgive child
support arrears. That year, the legislature created Wis. Stat. §767.32(1r),
which prohibited credit for support due prior to the date of bringing a motion
seeing relief. A subsequent court of appeals decision, Douglas
County Child Support Enforcement Unit. v. Fisher, 200 Wis. 2d 807, 547 N.W.2d
801 (Ct. App. 1996), held that the courts cannot grant credit for child support
payments not made in a manner prescribed by the judgment. In 1997, the legislature
amended Wis. Stat. §767.32(1r) to allow credit under certain limited circumstances.
In Monicken v.
Monicken, 226 Wis. 2d 119, 593 N.W.2d 509 (Ct. App. 1999), the Court of Appeals
held that the 1997 amendments applied retroactively. In the instant case, the
father argues that retroactive application denies him due process of laws.
In 1982,
Barbara B. and Dorian H. entered into a paternity judgment concerning their young
son, John. Under the terms of the judgment, Dorian was required to pay $30 per
week in child support. In 2001, when John was 21, Barbara brought an enforcement
action against Dorian for non-payment of child support. Dorians defense
was that the parties had orally agreed that he could stop paying child in exchange
for his stopping seeing the child. The trial court refused to apply the doctrine
of equitable estoppel and concluded that retroactive application of Wis. Stat.
§ 767.32(1r) is constitutional.
On appeal,
Dorian argued that at the time of the judgment, the trial court had discretion
to credit child support arrears. As a result, he argued that retroactive application
of the subsequent statutes strictly limiting this discretion violates his right
to due process under the state and federal constitutions. The supreme court, in
a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Patience D. Roggensack, disagreed.
The court
applied the balancing test required by Martin v. Richards, 192 Wis. 2d
156, 531 N.W.2d 70 (1995), to determine whether retroactive application of these
statutes comports with due process. The results of the balancing test performed
by Justice Roggensack did not weigh in Dorian's favor. As a result, the court
held that retroactive applications of § 767.32(1m) and (1r) are rational
and do not violate state or federal constitutional due process requirements.
As frequently
opined in this column, it is preferable in family court actions that trial courts
have wide discretion since the range of possible occurrences can lead to inequitable
results if courts are handcuffed. Similarly, by not allowing trial courts discretion
to forgive arrears, certain inequities will result in cases where the payer could
not bring a motion due to emotional, physical or financial restrictions. Still,
it is the province of the legislature to enact laws, as inequitable as they may
be in actual experience. It is the province of the courts to interpret the laws,
as the supreme court has done here.
The result,
while it will undoubtably cause some inequities, at least is clear: If a person
has a child support order, it can only reduced retroactive to the date of bringing
an appropriate motion. An oral agreement is not sufficient. The law is clear,
and payers ignore it at their own peril.
Back
to Herman Article Archive
.