| Warning: Case decisions are often subject to further review by other courts and thus may be affirmed, overturned, or modified in later proceedings; therefore the reader should exercise caution in the reading and interpretation of these cases as the current status of case law and/or statutory law may have changed by the time you read this. Please consult with a licensed attorney in the proper jurisdiction before you take any action based on what you read on this or any other website. |
|
STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: 1 CA-CV 03-0384 O P I N I O N JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS Andrea Cons Clay, Appellant Avondale PORTLEY, Judge FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At the July 15, 2002 hearing, Father provided the court with “a copy of a Report from Social Security indicating that in 1999 a check was paid to Mother in the sum [of] $16,865.00 for child support arrearage.” Father alleged that the check was never applied toward his arrears. The Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, indicated that the sum included benefits from 1995 through 1998 and “other” tax years.1 The document was received into evidence and the matter was referred to Expedited Services for a recalculation of the arrears. The case status report prepared by Expedited Services factored in the 1999 check and concluded that Father had “overpaid his support by $9,538.08[.]“ On November 26, 2002, Father filed a “Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Refund of Overpayment of Child Support[.]” Over Mother’s objection, the trial court, on April 14, 2003, granted Father’s motion and entered judgment against Mother in the sum of $9,538.08. Mother timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(C) (2003). DISCUSSION Mother contends that the judgment is contrary to Section 25 of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines as set forth in the Appendix to A.R.S. § 25-320 (Supp. 2003). Section 25 states: A trial court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo as a question of law. Mead v. Holzmann, 198 Ariz. 219, 220, 4, 8P.3d 407, 408 (App. 2000). “The Arizona Child Support Guidelines follow the Income Shares Model.” Background, A.R.S. § 25-320, App. Under this model, “[t]he total child support amount approximates the amount that would have been spent on the child if the parents and child were living together. Each parent contributes his/her proportionate share of the total child support amount.” Id. When a parent qualifies for federal Social Security disability insurance benefits, his/her child may be eligible for monthly dependent insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(d) (2003). The majority of the jurisdictions that have adopted the Income Shares Model view the dependency benefits as earnings derived by the disabled non-custodial parent from their past Social Security contributions and have held that the parent is entitled to a credit toward his/her child support obligations equal to the dependency benefits. See e.g., Harbison v. Harbison, 688 So. 2d 876, 877-78 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997); Wallace v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Cutter, 774 So. 2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000); In re Marriage of Hilmo, 623 N.W.2d 809, 813 (Iowa 2001); Matter of Marriage of Williams, 900 P.2d 860, 861-62 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995); Miller v.Miller, 929 S.W.2d 202, 205 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996); Lamkin v. Flanagan, 865 So. 2d 916, 921 (La. Ct. App. 2004); Weaks v. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d 503, 507 (Mo. 1991); Gress v. Gress, 596 N.W.2d 8, 14 (Neb. 1999); Sheren v. Moseley, 731 A.2d 52, 54-56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. 1999); Romero v. Romero, 682 P.2d 201, 202-03 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984); Comm’r of Soc. Servs. v. Rosen, 736 N.Y.S.2d 42, 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001); Williams v. Williams, 727 N.E.2d 895, 897-98 (Ohio 2000); Merritt v. Merritt, 73 P.3d 878, 884 (Okla. 2003); Children & Youth Servs. v.Chorgo, 491 A.2d 1374, 1381 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Pontbriand v. Pontbriand, 622 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I. 1993); Crago v. Donovan, 594 N.W.2d 726, 730 (S.D. 1999); Mosley v. Mosley, 520 S.E.2d 412, 416 (Va. Ct. App. 1999); Farley v. Farley, 412 S.E.2d 261, 264 (W. Va. 1991); Cf In re Marriage of Robinson, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134, 136-37 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Section 25 appears to be consistent with that view. Nevertheless, Section 25 clearly indicates that “[a]ny benefit received by the child . . . in excess of the child support obligation is not treated as an arrearage payment nor as a future payment.” Here, the trial court incorrectly ordered Mother to reimburse the “difference” to Father. Although Mother was identified as the payee on the 1999 check, the dependency benefits belonged to the child. More importantly, the child was not receiving an apportionment of Father’s benefits but, rather, a separate and distinct entitlement available because of Father’s disability. 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(d); see, e.g., De La Ossa v. De La Ossa, 677 A.2d 1157, 1158-59 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996). Accordingly, we vacate the April 14, 2003 judgment and remand the matter to the trial court. On remand, the trial court is to determine when Father’s disability began, i.e., the dates covered by the 1999 check. Next, the trial court must determine the arrears, if any, since the commencement of Father’s disability through the dates covered by the 1999 check. Father is not entitled to a credit against arrearage accumulated prior to disability. Accord Wallace, 774 So. 2d at 807-08; Matter of Marriage of Williams, 900 P.2d at 861-62; Miller, 929 S.W.2d at 205; Weaks, 821 S.W.2d at 507; Gress, 596 N.W.2d at 14; Sheren, 731 A.2d at 54-56; Romero, 682 P.2d at 202-03; Children & Youth Servs., 491 A.2d at 1381; Crago, 594 N.W.2d at 730; Farley, 412 S.E.2d at 264. The trial court is instructed to offset $16,865.00 from the arrearage, if any. If the arrearage is less than $16,865.00, Father is entitled to a judgment extinguishing the arrearage. However, Father is not entitled to any refund for any alleged overpayment. Jansen v. Westrich, 95 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (“If Father is not entitled to a credit against future The trial court is also instructed to determine the child’s emancipation date. Absent evidence of the child’s disability, Father’s child support obligation ended, at the latest, on the child’s nineteenth birthday, March 25, 2002. See A.R.S. §§ 25-320(B), (C) (Supp. 2003); 25-503(M) (Supp. 2003). The latest report from Expedited Services shows current support due past that CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we vacate the April 14, 2003 judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 1 The record on appeal does not indicate when Father’s disability began.
________________________________ |