Opinion ID: 2602044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Full Faith and Credit to Virginia Divorce Decree

Text: [¶ 15] The district court ruled that the parties' Virginia divorce decree was entitled to full faith and credit. See U.S. Const. Art. 4, § 1. The parties focus on the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, as the paradigm for enforcing the child support order. [2] That statute provides, in relevant part: (a) General rule.The appropriate authorities of each State (1) shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State[.] Id. [¶ 16] Father argues first that the district court erred by enforcing the child support provisions of the Virginia decree under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because it was a modifiable order, and not a final judgment. The Virginia decree provided: It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 20-79(c), all further matters pertaining to child custody, visitation and support are hereby transferred to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia for the enforcement and/or modification of this decree as the circumstances may require. VA.Code Ann. § 20-108 allows a court to modify a child support order, but specifically states that no support order can be retroactively modified. In these respects, this provision is similar to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311 (LexisNexis 2007). [¶ 17] Father cites Barber v. Barber, 323 U.S. 77, 65 S.Ct. 137, 89 L.Ed. 82 (1944) and Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 682, 54 L.Ed. 905 (1910) as authority for his argument that the Virginia decree was not entitled to full faith and credit because it was subject to modification. In Barber, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Tennessee court should have given full faith and credit to a North Carolina award for accrued alimony even though the initial order granting alimony was subject to future modification under North Carolina law. In Sistare, the Supreme Court ruled that a decree for alimony was entitled to full faith and credit in another state as to past due installments even though it could be modified prospectively by the issuing court. [¶ 18] Barber and Sistare do not support Father's position because Mother was seeking child support payments that were in arrears and expenses which Father owed under the Virginia decree. Although Virginia law specifically allows for modification of future child support, as Wyoming law does, retroactive modification is not generally allowed. Thus, with respect to the past due child support and medical and college expenses, Father's obligation was not subject to modification under Virginia law. [¶ 19] Moreover, like in Wyoming and Virginia, child support orders across the country are routinely subject to prospective modification in accordance with the statutes of the many states. See 24A Am.Jur.2d Divorce § 1119 (2006). The FFCCSOA specifically requires courts to recognize the orders of other states. If an obligor could claim that the child support order is not entitled to full faith and credit simply because it is subject to modification, the statute would essentially be ineffective. Clearly, the Virginia decree was entitled to full faith and credit with respect to the child support arrearages and the other past-due expenses. [¶ 20] Father also argues that the district court should not have given full faith and credit to the Virginia child support order because the provision which required payment of child support until Child was 23, so long as she was a full-time college student, is inconsistent with Wyoming law which provides that a child support obligation terminates once the child reaches the age of majority. See, e.g., Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-313 (LexisNexis 2007). Initially, we question the premise of Father's argument. 28 U.S.C. § 1738B is phrased in mandatory language, directing a state to enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by the court of another State. Father does not argue that the Virginia order somehow violated § 1738B. Thus, under the Supremacy Clause, Wyoming is obligated to enforce the order, according to its terms, whether or not Virginia law differs from Wyoming law. [¶ 21] The cases cited by Father for his statement that the full faith and credit clause does not require us to recognize a child support order of another state if it is contrary to our law do not pertain to the FFCCSOA or child support orders. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888), overruled in part by Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S.Ct. 229, 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935) (holding full faith and credit clause did not prevent United States Supreme Court from determining whether it had original jurisdiction over a cause of action); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892) (determining whether law under which judgment was ordered was penal and, therefore, not subject to enforcement in another state); Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 20 S.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. 1028 (1900) (concluding decision by court in decedent's home state that her will converted all of her real property into personal property, wherever situated, was not conclusive as to the title to real property in another state); Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530 (1910) (ruling New York court not required to give full faith and credit to Michigan statute legitimizing children born out of wedlock in order to decide the ownership of New York real property in a probate dispute); Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.Ed. 1144 (1915) (analyzing right of children adopted in Louisiana to real property under Alabama statute of descent). Thus, we do not find the cases persuasive. [¶ 22] Moreover, it is not accurate to say that Wyoming will never impose or recognize a child support order which continues after the child reaches the age of majority. Section 20-2-313 generally provides that a child support obligation terminates when the child reaches the age of majority. [3] However, that statute was not adopted until 2000. The Witowskis' divorce decree, which adopted the parties' agreement including the provision that required Father to pay child support beyond Child's majority, was entered by the Virginia court in 1992. Generally, contracts are written in light of existing law, including common law, and statutes ought not be applied retroactively so as to deprive contracting parties of their rights. Pavuk v. Rogers, 2001 WY 75, ¶ 8, 30 P.3d 19, 20 (Wyo.2001). In 1992, we considered in Kidd v. Kidd, 832 P.2d 566 (Wyo.1992) the effect of the parties' agreement which had been incorporated into the divorce decree and required the father to pay child support (although at a reduced amount) after the child reached the age of majority. The agreement obligated the father to pay child support until the child was 23 years old as long as she was pursuing a higher education or living at least part time with the mother. We ruled that the provision was enforceable. Id. at 568-70. [¶ 23] Father cites Pauling v. Pauling, 837 P.2d 1073 (Wyo.1992), for the proposition that, under Wyoming law, child support cannot continue after the child reaches the age of majority unless the child is disabled. In that case, the decree required father to pay child support until the child reached the age of majority, while the parties' settlement agreement which was incorporated in the decree required the support payments to continue until the child reached the age of 21. Id. at 1078. On appeal, we concluded that the agreement was [p]resumed to merge into the divorce decree when, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the parties enter into an agreement in contemplation of divorce and thereafter request the district court to approve, ratify, or confirm the agreement. Id. at 1078, citing Phillips v. Phillips, 93 Idaho 384, 462 P.2d 49 (1969). Since the decree and agreement were inconsistent, the terms of the decree controlled. Id. [¶ 24] This Court stated that, in order to obligate the father to pay child support until the child reached the age of 21, modification of the decree was required. Pauling, 837 P.2d at 1079. We concluded, under the circumstances of that case, the district court erred by modifying the decree because there was no evidence to support continuing the child support obligation after the age of majority, such as evidence that the child was disabled. Id. at 1079-80. [¶ 25] Obviously, Pauling is distinguishable from the case at bar. Here, there is no discrepancy between the decree and the agreementthey both required Father to pay support until Child reached the age of 23, as long as she was in college. This case is more comparable to Kidd where we upheld the post-minority child support obligation under the terms of the parties' agreement and the divorce decree. We conclude, therefore, the child support provision in this case did not violate Wyoming law. The district court properly gave full faith and credit to the Virginia divorce decree.