Title: Stein v. Stein

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Stein v. Stein (2000-263); 173 Vt. 627; 800 A.2d 460

[Filed 15-Apr-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-263

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2001

Michelle E. Stein	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
Daniel E. Stein	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. F12-1-98 CnDm

                                                Trial Judge: Linda Levitt  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Father appeals the judgment of the family court affirming the
  magistrate's enforcement order   regarding father's child support
  obligation.  Father raises numerous issues on appeal, but essentially 
  challenges the constitutionality of the child support guidelines applied to
  parents with shared  custody, arguing that they deny him equal protection
  of the law.  He also specifically challenges the  magistrate's computation
  of different child support amounts for the school year and summer vacation 
  in the underlying child support order as denying him equal protection of
  the law.  Finally, father  argues that the magistrate erred by failing to
  modify his child support obligation and by failing to  forgive his accrued
  arrears.  We affirm.

       The parties were divorced by order of the family court on August 12,
  1999.  They stipulated to  shared custody for their two children, but
  contested the issue of child support.  Both mother and  father were
  represented by counsel at this time.  Among the issues raised by father
  before the  magistrate regarding child support were whether the facts
  supported a deviation from the child  support guidelines and whether the
  child support guidelines operated so as to treat each parent fairly  with
  respect to such issues as housing costs across the state, age of parties'
  children, tax filing status  of parents, and benefits incident to
  employment enjoyed by some parents such as health insurance  and cafeteria
  plans.  The magistrate determined that the facts did not support a
  deviation from the  guidelines.  Furthermore, the magistrate stated that
  she could not determine what the asserted flaws  in the guidelines were
  from father's submissions and, therefore, she would not deviate from the 
  guidelines on that basis either.  The magistrate issued a final child
  support order on May 4, 1999  requiring father to pay $546.45 in monthly
  support during the school year and $253.89 in monthly  support during the
  summer months.  Father did not appeal from this order.

       With the exception of July, father never paid the full amount ordered
  by the magistrate, and in  October 1999 mother pursued an enforcement
  action through the Office of Child Support.  Another  hearing was held
  before a magistrate at which both parties appeared pro se.  In opposition
  to the  enforcement action father argued that he and mother had verbally
  agreed to modify his support 

 

  obligation and to waive arrears accruing before September, that he lacked
  the ability to meet his  support obligation and that the magistrate's
  findings in its May 1999 order were erroneous.  He also  again attacked the
  methodology for calculating child support under the guidelines for its
  disparate  treatment of parents.  The magistrate issued an enforcement
  order determining the amount of arrears  and establishing a schedule for
  their payment.  The magistrate concluded, among other things, that  father
  could not collaterally attack the May 1999 order, including its findings
  and the methodology  used to calculate his child support obligation, i.e.,
  the child support guidelines, as those matters were  res judicata.  The
  magistrate also found that father had the ability to pay his obligation and
  that  mother's verbal agreement to reduce father's monthly child support
  and waive arrears in exchange  for regular payment on his behalf was not
  enforceable. 

       Father appealed the magistrate's decision to the family court.  Father
  reiterated his attack on  the guidelines as discriminatory, requested that
  the court reconsider his support obligation and  modify it so as to deviate
  from the support guidelines and requested that his accrued arrearage be 
  waived.  The family court affirmed the magistrate's enforcement order,
  concluding father had failed  to demonstrate that the guidelines deprived
  him of equal protection of the law and determining his  attack on the
  original child support amount was barred by res judicata.  The court noted,
  however,  that father could bring a motion to modify his child support
  obligation based on a change in  circumstances.  The court also determined
  that mother's agreement to waive father's child support  arrears was not
  enforceable.  Father now appeals to this Court.

       We conclude, like the magistrate, that father may not now attack the
  constitutionality of the  child support guidelines used to establish his
  child support obligation in this enforcement action  given his failure to
  appeal the original final child support order; it constitutes a collateral
  attack on  that order barred by the principles of res judicata.  As we have
  noted previously "[a] collateral attack  is one questioning the validity of
  a judgment in a proceeding which is not brought for the purpose of 
  modifying, setting aside, vacating or enjoining the judgment."  Hixson v.
  Plump, 167 Vt. 202, 205,