Opinion ID: 2589907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Enforcement of an out-of-state child support order

Text: Petitioner asserts two main arguments: (1) the NRCP 11 order is legally insufficient to support a finding that NRCP 11 was violated; and (2) the district court manifestly abused its discretion in ruling that NRCP 11 had been violated, because the ruling was based on an erroneous view of the law. First, petitioner argues that the NRCP 11 order is legally deficient because: (1) it fails to identify what, if any, document was signed in violation of NRCP 11; and (2) it fails to identify which attorney or party signed such document. The obligor [1] responds by arguing that the NRCP 11 order did not need to identify which documents filed by the district attorney violated NRCP 11 because the file is replete with such papers. Second, petitioner argues that, even if the NRCP 11 order is valid despite its failure to identify which document signed by which attorney or party violated NRCP 11, the entire action to enforce the Washington decree was nevertheless well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or good faith extension of existing law. Namely, the action was well grounded in fact because it was based upon the sworn affidavit of arrears from Washington OCSE. Further, the action was warranted by existing law because everything the district attorney did was in conformity with the mandates of NRS 130.015 and 42 U.S.C. § 666 and the provisions of NRS 125B.140(1)(a). NRS 130.015(1) provides as follows: If a support-enforcement agency of this state receives a request from a support-enforcement agency of another state to enforce a support order, the support-enforcement agency of this state shall respond to the request as required by 42 U.S.C. § 666. The request shall be deemed to constitute a certification by the support-enforcement agency of the other state: (a) Of the amount of support under the order for which payment is in arrears; and (b) That the agency has complied with all requirements for procedural due process applicable to the case. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9) provides, in pertinent part, that each state shall have: [p]rocedures which require that any payment or installment of support under any child support order, whether ordered through the State judicial system or through the expedited processes required by paragraph (2), is (on or after the date it is due) (A) a judgment by operation of law, with the full force, effect, and attributes of a judgment of the State, including the ability to be enforced, (B) entitled as a judgment to full faith and credit in such State and in any other State, and (C) not subject to retroactive modification by such State or by any other State. NRS 125B.140(1)(a) [2] provides as follows: If an order issued by a court provides for payment for the support of a child, that order is a judgment by operation of law on or after the date a payment is due. Such a judgment may not be retroactively modified or adjusted and may be enforced in the same manner as other judgments of this state. Thus, argues the district attorney, the entire proceeding was not only allowed by NRS 125B.140(1)(a), but mandated by NRS 130.015(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9). Pursuant to those statutes, the district attorney maintains that the action was a proper attempt to enforce, not to adjudicate, an out-of-state child support order. The response to Washington OCSE's request and the reliance on the Washington certification of arrears was proper, pursuant to NRS 130.015(1). Enforcement of the Washington support order as a judgment was proper, the district attorney asserts, pursuant to NRS 125B.140(1)(a). In summary, the district attorney argues that the district court misinterpreted these statutes in making its NRCP 11 ruling, and therefore the ruling constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion. The obligor essentially argues what the district court stated in the order of sanctions, that the district attorney should not simply proceed to blind enforcement of all out-of-state requests to enforce a foreign support order, but rather should exercise discretion as mandated by NRS 130.507(2). NRS 130.507(2) provides that the district attorney, upon receiving from an out-of-state support-enforcement agency the necessary documents to enforce a foreign support order, shall consider and, if appropriate, use any administrative procedure authorized by the law of this state to enforce a support order. (Emphasis added.) The obligor argues that the if appropriate language refutes the district attorney's claim that the statutes impose a mandate on the district attorney to enforce out-of-state support orders. [3] The obligor also argues that the support order has been at all times since the commencement of this action incapable of enforcement in Nevada because it had not been reduced to a sum certain by a court from Washington, the state with continuing exclusive jurisdiction to do so. The obligor further argues that the district attorney should have known the action was frivolous after reviewing the obligor's facially valid defenses. We conclude that the district court, in imposing NRCP 11 sanctions, misapprehended the procedure outlined in state and federal law for the enforcement of out-of-state child support orders. The NRCP 11 order overlooked NRS 125B.140(1)(a), which provides that a child support order from a court of any state ( see the definition of court in NRS 125B.004), is considered a judgment by operation of law on or after the date a payment is due and may be enforced in the same manner as other judgments of this state. Therefore, obligor's argument that the arrears must be reduced to a sum certain judgment prior to enforcement lacks merit. We also note that the NRCP 11 order misconstrued the other statutes cited in petitioner's argument. No statute supports the district court's conclusion that the district attorney had a duty to discontinue the enforcement of the arrears once the district court ruled that Washington had continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the support order. Rather, NRS 130.015(1), 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9), and NRS 125B.140(1)(a) specifically authorize the enforcement of arrears in Nevada, regardless of a support order's state of origin. The NRCP 11 order referred to a notice of hearing sent to the obligor, saying that the notice belied the district attorney's argument that it never intended to adjudicate the amount of arrears. The district court misapprehended the notice of hearing, because a hearing to determine a payment on arrears is merely enforcement of the arrears, not an indication of an adjudication of what the amount of arrears should be. Accordingly, we conclude that the notice did not belie, but supported, the district attorney's claim to have never pursued an adjudication of the arrears. Because the district attorney properly relied on the affidavit of arrears from Washington OCSE, pursuant to NRS 130.015(1); properly responded to the enforcement request, pursuant to NRS 130.015(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9); and properly sought to enforce the Washington support order in Nevada, pursuant to NRS 125B.140(1)(a), we conclude that the district court relied on an erroneous view of the law in concluding that the district attorney acted in violation of NRCP 11. Because the district court erroneously interpreted the law governing the district attorney's enforcement of the arrears, its NRCP 11 ruling is a manifest abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the NRCP 11 order entered on June 9, 1999. [4] See Marshall, 108 Nev. at 466, 836 P.2d at 52 (stating that [a] writ of mandamus will issue to control a court's arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion).