Source: https://coloradoatty.com/legal-cases/marriage-of-haddad/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:19:18+00:00

Document:
Concerning El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit, Intervenor-Appellee.
Sidney L. Patin, P.C., Sidney L. Patin, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant.
Belveal & Eigel, L.L.C., Christina K. Eigel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for IntervenorAppellee.
C.R.S.2003 (UIFSA), Joseph M. Haddad (father) appeals from the district court’s order finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Leigh A. Haddad (mother) to enter a judgment against her for overpaid child support and refusing to offset father’s overpayment against his current child support obligation. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.
(CSEU), requesting entry of an order of child support. Based on that petition, the Teller County District Court ordered father to pay $315.17 per month in child support. The El Paso County District Court entered a decree of dissolution of marriage in 1998, incorporating the child support order entered in the UIFSA proceeding. In 2000, venue of the UIFSA proceeding was transferred from Teller County to El Paso County. All subsequent child support orders were entered in the El Paso County UIFSA proceeding.
In 2002, father requested modification of the child support order. He noted that one of the children had lived with him since 1999, and he asked the magistrate to (1) modify the amount of child support and (2) apply the new amount retroactively to 1999. The magistrate modified the amount but declined to make the modification retroactive. The district court subsequently reversed part of the magistrate’s ruling and made the child support modification retroactive to July 1999.
Because the retroactive application of the modified child support resulted in an overpayment, father requested that the district court enter a judgment against mother for the overpaid child support and relieve him of his present child support payments until he received reimbursement for the overpayment. The district court found there was an overpayment of $12,709.81. But the courtheld that it lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against mother for the overpayment.
The court further declined to offset the overpayment against father’s current child support obligation.
Father first contends that the district court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against mother for the overpaid child support. We agree. Whether the court has jurisdiction in a UIFSA action to enter an order remedying an overpayment of child support is a question of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the authority of the court to decide a particular matter. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and the right to do so cannot be waived. In re Marriage of Tonnessen, 937 P.2d 863 (Colo.App.1996).
In addressing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in this case, it is important to note what is not at stake. There is no doubt that the court here had jurisdiction over the child support orders generally, for Colorado is both the “issuing state” and “responding state” under § 14-5-102, C.R.S.2003. Thus, unlike in In re Marriage of Zinke, 967 P.2d 210, 211 (Colo.App.1998), the court had continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child support orders. Similarly, there is no doubt that the court’s determination here was limited to issues of child support. Unlike in People in interest of R.L.H., 942 P.2d 1386, 1389 (Colo.App.1997), the court was not asked to rule on any extraneous matter, such as parenting time.
Section 14-5-101(21), C.R.S.2003 (emphasis added; version effective until July 1, 2004). We conclude that an order requiring one party to repay or reimburse the other party for overpaid child support qualifies as a “reimbursement,” within the meaning of § 14-5-101(21). Consequently, the court had authority to issue and enforce its order under § 14-5-305(b) (1).
Additionally, we note that, under § 14-5-305(b) (12), C.R.S.2003, the tribunal has the authority to grant “any other available remedy.” Because courts are empowered under § 14-5- 305(b) to handle a wide range of issues concerning child support–including the power to “issue or enforce” and “modify” support orders–we conclude that the power to address overpayments is an “available remedy” within the meaning of § 14-5-305(b) (12).
(Colo.App.1982) (affirming trial court’s order that wife pay husband $1000 as reimbursement foroverpayment of child support).
County CSEU, the action was brought under mother’s name, and mother signed as petitioner. Under the circumstances, we conclude that mother entered an appearance and consented to the personal jurisdiction of the court. See In re Marriage of Jeffers, 992 P.2d 686, 689 (Colo.App.1999) (a party enters a general appearance and consents to the personal jurisdiction of a court by seeking relief in a form that acknowledges the personal jurisdiction of the court).
Participation by a petitioner in a proceeding Before a responding tribunal, whether in person, by private attorney, or through services provided by the support enforcement agency, does not confer personal jurisdiction over the petitioner in another proceeding. We reject this argument. Section § 14-5-314(a) is designed to shield parties in child support actions from the burdens of litigation over collateral matters such as parental responsibilities and parenting time. Thus, a petition for affirmative relief under UIFSA limits the jurisdiction of the tribunal to the boundaries of the support proceeding. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act § 314 cmt., 9 U.L.A. 325-26 (1999). But a claim of overpayment of child support is within the boundaries of a support proceeding, especially when, as here, the court has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the support order. See § 14-5-205(a) (1), C.R.S.2003 (version effective until July 1, 2004).
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court had both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enter judgment with respect to the overpayment. We therefore vacate that portion of the district court’s order and remand with directions to consider what remedy, if any, is available for father’s overpayment.
repay. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Pusey, supra (mother not required to reimburse father for the overpayment of child support); In re Marriage of George, supra (wife ordered to reimburse husband for overpayment of support and maintenance); see also In re Marriage of Rivera, 91 P.3d 464, 2004 WL 583701 (Colo.App. No. 03CA0235, Mar. 25, 2004) (court had equitable authority to reduce the amount of arrearage that mother was required to pay); In re Marriage of Dennin, 811 P.2d 449 (Colo.App.1991) (mother equitably estopped from asserting her right to collection of part of child support arrearages). The order is vacated to the extent it determined the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against mother for the overpayment, and the case is remanded for further action consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Judge VOGT and Judge DAILEY concur.

References: § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 314
 § 14