Opinion ID: 1168149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the post-majority educational child support decisions

Text: In Hinchey v. Hinchey, 625 P.2d 297 (Alaska 1981), we ruled that AS 25.24.160(2) [4] authorized the superior court to enter post-majority educational child support awards. Three years later we overruled Hinchey. Dowling, 679 P.2d at 483. In Lawrence v. Lawrence, 718 P.2d 142 (Alaska 1986), a non-custodial parent subject to a post-majority support order imposed between the Hinchey and Dowling decisions moved to vacate the educational support award based on the new rule of law set forth in Dowling. We recognized two avenues by which such an order might be vacated. First, the non-custodial parent may move to modify the child support obligation pursuant to AS 25.24.170. [5] 718 P.2d at 144-45. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances to support the modification of an existing award. Id. We specifically stated that the change in the law brought about by the Dowling decision did not constitute changed circumstances. Id. at 145. Since the non-custodial parent introduced no other evidence demonstrating changed circumstances, we ruled that he was not entitled to a modification of the post-majority support award on that theory. Id. Second, we ruled that a non-custodial parent might be entitled to relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(b)(5) [6] if it was no longer equitable to give the judgment prospective application. Id. at 146-47. The court remanded the case to the superior court to determine whether, in light of the Dowling decision, it was no longer equitable to enforce the post-majority educational support award. [7] Id.