Case Title: STEVE JOHN GRENZ v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0089

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
STEVE JOHN GRENZ v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 2011 WY 3Case Number: S-10-0089Decided: 01/11/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

STEVE JOHN 
GRENZ,

Appellant 
(Respondent),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OF WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,

Appellee 
(Petitioner). 

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Sue Davidson, Aspen 
Ridge Law Offices, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce A. Salzburg, 
Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. 
Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Susan Kay Stipe, Assistant Attorney 
General

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
Appellant, 
Steve John Grenz, challenges a district court order modifying his child support 
payments.  He contends the district 
court failed to provide him proper credit against his child support obligations 
for court-ordered abatements he had received. We find no error and 
affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]      
Mr. Grenz presents a 
single issue:

 
 
Did the district 
court err when it failed to follow and enforce the mandates of W.S. 20-2-305(f) 
and the abatement orders entered in this case and thereby commit an abuse of 
discretion?

 
 
The State phrases the 
issue as follows:

 
 
Did the district 
court properly exercise its discretion when it did not give Appellant credit 
against his future child support obligations for abatement amounts that he 
failed to utilize when they were granted?

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
Mr. Grenz and Ms. 
Grenz were married in 1987.  Two 
daughters were born as issue of the marriage.  The older daughter was born in 1990 and 
the younger daughter was born in 1993.  
The couple divorced in 1997.  
In the divorce decree, Ms. Grenz was awarded custody of the children 
subject to Mr. Grenz's visitation rights.  Mr. Grenz was ordered to pay child 
support.  In 1999, the district 
court issued an order modifying child support.  The order required Mr. Grenz to pay 
$867.23 per month in child support for both children.  Child support would be reduced to 
$619.12 per month when the child support obligation ended for the first child. 
 The order also provided that Mr. 
Grenz's child support obligations would abate during visitation pursuant to the 
abatement statute.  That statute 
presently states that "child support shall abate by one-half (1/2) of the daily 
support obligation for each day the noncustodial parent has physical custody of 
the child for whom support is due, provided that the noncustodial parent has 
custody of the child for fifteen (15) or more consecutive days."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-305(a) (LexisNexis 
2009).

 
 

[¶4]        
Between 1998 and 
2007, Mr. Grenz filed over twenty claims for abatement of child support.  Most of the claims were granted.  In all, Mr. Grenz received abatement 
orders totaling $8,312.54.  Although 
the abatement claims were granted, and Mr. Grenz would have been entitled to 
reduce his subsequent child support payments, he never did so.  

 
 

[¶5]        
In June of 2009, 
pursuant to the modified decree, Mr. Grenz's child support obligations were 
automatically reduced to $619.12 per month.  On August 6, 2009, the State filed a 
Petition for Modification of Support seeking to increase child support for the 
younger daughter.  The petition 
alleged that modification was warranted due to changed financial circumstances 
of the parties and changes to the guidelines for calculating support 
payments.  In response, Mr. Grenz 
filed a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion to Remit Overpayment, and a Motion for Stay. 
 In general, he objected to any 
increase in the support obligation.  
Pertinent to this appeal, he sought credit for $15,329.84 in overpayments 
of his support obligations.  The 
claim for credit included the $8,312.54 in abatements at issue in this 
appeal.

 
 

[¶6]        
After holding a 
hearing and receiving supplemental information and argument, the district court 
granted the petition and increased Mr. Grenz's child support obligation to 
$962.66 per month.  With regard to 
the unused abatements, the court found that "[t]he overpayments in this case, 
essentially amounting to the defendant not availing himself of Court-ordered 
abatements over the years, cannot now be counted legally or equitably against 
his future child support obligations."  
The court found that "[t]he history of approximately $8,000 in unused 
abatements, and the regular and timely payments of child support over many years 
convince this Court that retroactivity of this new child support amount should 
be ordered only to January 1, 2010."  
Mr. Grenz filed a timely appeal.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶7]        
We 
apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a district court's order on a 
petition to modify child support.  
Steele v. Neeman, 2009 
WY 58, ¶ 7, 206 P.3d 384, 386 (Wyo. 2009).  In reviewing for an abuse of 
discretion, our primary consideration is the reasonableness of the district 
court's decision in light of the evidence presented.  Id.  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶8]        
Mr. Grenz asserts 
that he is entitled to have $8,312.54 in abatements refunded to him or used to 
reduce his future support obligations.  
The issue presented by Mr. Grenz is similar to one we addressed in Starkey v. Starkey, 2007 WY 106, 161 P.3d 515 (Wyo. 2007).  In that case, 
the father paid an extra $50.00 per month in an effort to pay off his child 
support obligation in advance, and eventually accumulated an overpayment balance 
of $2,885.70.  He argued that his 
overpayment balance should have been credited against his future child support 
obligations.  Id., ¶ 6, 161 P.3d  at 516-17.  We concluded that the district court did 
not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the father credit for overpayment 
of his child support.  Id., ¶ 12, 161 P.3d  at 518.  After noting that "both [Wyoming] 
statutes and case law indicate a clear aversion to the unilateral modification 
of child support orders," we held that "it is Father's obligation to pay the 
specified amounts according to the decree, and orders modifying it thereafter. 
 Allowing an increase at one time 
and a reduction at another would simply lead to incongruity and disorder in the 
child support system."  Id., ¶¶ 9, 11, 161 P.3d  at 518.  

 
 

[¶9]        
We note at the outset 
that Mr. Grenz made overpayments totaling $15,329.84.  Mr. Grenz concedes that $7,017.30 of that amount were voluntary 
overpayments, and that, based on our decision in Starkey, he cannot recover those 
payments or have them applied to his future support obligation.  He asserts, however, that Starkey does not apply to the unused 
abatements.  He contends that the 
unused abatements were not voluntary overpayments.  We disagree. 

 
 

[¶10]     
Over an eight-year 
period, Mr. Grenz received more than twenty orders granting abatements, totaling 
in excess of $8,000.00.  After 
receiving the abatement orders, however, Mr. Grenz did not reduce his payments 
to reflect the abatement amounts, but rather continued to pay the full amount of 
his child support.  Until raising 
the issue in this case, he never requested a refund of any overpayment.  The only explanation for 
Mr. Grenz's behavior is provided in his statement of the evidence, which 
sets forth a colloquy from the district court's hearing:

 
 
COURT:  [Counsel], why didn't your client 
request his overpayments before now? 

 
 
[COUNSEL]:  The issue really had not come up before 
his ex-wife wanted to modify his child support.  But when he was asked by the Clerk of 
Court's office one time what he wanted to have done with an abatement check, he 
said he wanted that money to be sent to his ex-wife to help with his girls.1

 
 
In light of Mr. 
Grenz's knowledge of the abatement orders, his failure to adjust his child 
support payments according to those orders, and the statement that he intended 
for the abatement amounts to be used for his daughters' support, we conclude 
that the unused abatements are the equivalent of voluntary overpayments of child 
support obligations.  For the same 
reasons identified in Starkey, Mr. 
Grenz is not entitled to have those amounts refunded or used to reduce his 
future support obligations.

 
 

[¶11]     
Mr. Grenz argues that 
the district court ignored the prescriptive mandate of the word "shall" in Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 20-2-305(f) and ignored the use of the word "shall" in the 
abatement orders by failing to award a refund or reduce his future child support 
payments.  Mr. Grenz contends that, 
based on the language of both versions of the statute and the orders, the 
district court clerk was responsible for ensuring that he received proper credit 
for his abatements.

 
 

[¶12]     
At the time Mr. Grenz 
began receiving credit for child support abatements, the abatement statute 
provided, in relevant part, as follows:

 
 
(a) Unless otherwise 
ordered by the court, child support shall abate by one-half (1/2) of the daily 
support obligation for each day the noncustodial parent has physical custody of 
the child for whom support is due, provided that the noncustodial parent has 
custody of the child for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days.  Overnight and weekend visits with the 
custodial parent shall be disregarded in computing 
abatement.

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-305(a) (LexisNexis 2001).  
During the time this version of the statute was in effect, the orders 
from the district court granting abatement to Mr. Grenz stated that the district 
court clerk "shall enter said abatement upon the child support records . . . 
[I]f there is no Income Withholding Order this amount shall be treated as a 
credit on future child support obligations."

 
 

[¶13]     
In 2003, the 
abatement statute was amended and subsection (f) was added.  That section specifies that if there are 
no child support arrearages, the abatement amount is to be reduced from the next 
scheduled child support payment:

 
 
(f) Abatement amounts 
shall be applied to any current child support due and then to any arrearage 
balance owed to the custodial parent for past-due child support. If there is no 
arrearage and no objection was filed within the thirty (30) day period for 
objections, or if there is no arrearage and a notice of immediate approval was 
filed prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day period for objections, the 
abatement amount shall be reduced from the next scheduled payment of child 
support.

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-305(f) (LexisNexis 2009).  
Consistent with this amendment, the orders granting abatement to Mr. 
Grenz after 2003 provided that the district court clerk "shall enter said 
abatement upon the child support records by . . . crediting the amount from the 
next scheduled payment of current child support, then applying the balance to 
arrearage, if any. (No Income Withholding Order.)"  

 
 

[¶14]     
Both versions of the 
abatement statute are clear as to the process for obtaining an abatement 
order.  However, neither specifies 
how the abatement is to be applied to the support obligations of the 
noncustodial parent when, as in the present case, no income withholding order is 
in place and child support payments are not in arrears.  There is no language in the statutes or 
orders which requires the district court clerk to ensure that Mr. Grenz 
reduced his child support payment by the abatement amount.  The district court clerk was required to 
"enter said abatement upon the child support records."  The record in this case establishes that 
the clerk fulfilled this obligation.  

 
 

[¶15]     
The abatements, along 
with Mr. Grenz's regular child support payments and periodic overpayments, were 
entered in the Parental Obligation System for Support Enforcement (POSSE), the 
system used by the district court clerks and child support enforcement to keep 
track of payments made toward child support obligations.  The POSSE records show that Mr. Grenz 
accumulated $15,329.84 in "Futures," which includes the total amount of his 
abatements, as well as $7,017.30 in voluntary overpayments.  The fact that the future credits are 
recognized in the child support records, however, does not distinguish the 
present case from Starkey.  In Starkey, the child support records also 
reflected Mr. Starkey's overpayments.  
See Starkey, ¶ 4, 161 P.3d  at 
516 (noting that the district court found that Mr. Starkey had an overpayment 
balance of $2,885.70).

 
 

[¶16]     
There are also 
compelling policy reasons for denying credit for abatements that have 
accumulated over the course of an eight-year period.  It is important to note that a child 
support obligation "inures to the benefit of the child, not the custodial 
parent."  Pasenelli 
v. Pasenelli, 
2002 WY 159, ¶ 8, 57 P.3d 324, 327 (Wyo. 2002).

 
 
We have consistently 
stated that child support is for the benefit of the 
children, and that the custodial parent stands in the shoes of a trustee who 
administers the money for the exclusive benefit of the children based upon their 
needs and welfare. A child's right to adequate support cannot be bargained away 
by a contract between the parents regardless of the validity of the agreement 
between the parents themselves. This is a bright-line rule from which we have 
not wavered.

Kimble v. Ellis, 2004 WY 161, ¶ 8, 101 P.3d 950, 953 (Wyo. 
2004) (citations omitted).  
Given that child support is for the exclusive benefit of the 
child, it would be inequitable to allow child support to be increased at one 
time and reduced at another, as the child would be without needed support during 
periods when payments are reduced or terminated.  Indeed, this was the thrust of our 
decision in Starkey.  This inequity is especially pronounced 
in situations similar to the case at hand, where the younger child would be 
forced to bear reduced support payments after the older child reaches the age of 
majority.  In this case, although 
both children received the benefit of increased payments during periods of 
overpayment, only the younger daughter would be impacted by the corresponding 
reduction in support that would result from granting credit for unused 
abatements.  

 
 

[¶17]     
Finally, we note that 
the district court did provide Mr. Grenz some credit for his overpayments.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311(d)(ii) 
(LexisNexis 2009) provides that the district court may enter its order modifying 
child support retroactive to the date the initial motion for modification was 
served on the noncustodial parent.  
In this case, the motion to modify was served on August 19, 2009, and the 
order modifying child support was entered on January 13, 2010.  The district court, however, found that 
retroactivity of the new child support amount should be ordered only to January 
1, 2010.  Although the district 
court could have assessed approximately $1,700.00 in additional retroactive 
child support, it declined to do so in light of the "history of approximately 
$8,000 in unused abatements, and the regular and timely payments of child 
support over many years . . . ."

 
 

[¶18]     
We conclude that the 
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Grenz credit for unused child 
support abatements.  
Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Mr. Grenz's statement 
of the evidence was based on his recollection and was subject to the district 
court's approval pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03.  In its Order on Settlement of Record, 
the district court stated that "[t]he Court does not recall specifically, but 
would concede that [Mr. Grenz's] description of the colloquy between counsel and 
the Court might be accurate."  Mr. 
Grenz relied upon the statement of the evidence in his appellate brief and we 
have accepted the statement for purposes of this appeal.