Opinion ID: 2521377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Garcia's Inquiry into the Law

Text: Garcia also conducted a reasonable inquiry into the applicable law prior to filing the pleadings. She discovered the relevant case, In re Marriage of Wright, which deals specifically with the question of whether and when social security benefits paid to a child may be credited to a parent's child support obligations. 924 P.2d 1207. Wright interpreted section 14-10-115(16.5), 5 C.R.S. (1995), which stated that when a child receives social security benefits due to the retirement of a noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent's share of the total child support obligation... shall be reduced in an amount equal to the amount of such benefits. Subsection 14-10-115(16.5) was modified on July 1, 1996, but the text relevant to this case was not altered. Ch. 130, sec. 7, § 14-10-115(16.5), 1996 Colo. Sess. Laws 590, 598. In deciding whether this substitution of social security benefits for child support is automatic, or whether it required a court order, Wright concluded: [I]n those cases in which a child support obligation has been ordered and the obligated parent becomes eligible for social security benefits, a motion to modify child support is required before the child support obligation of the parent may be reduced by the amount of social security benefits paid for the benefit of the child. 924 P.2d at 1209 (emphasis added). In other words, Wright says that a parent's child support obligation is not satisfied by social security payments unless and until a court orders it. Wright also holds that according to section 14-10-115(16.5), [t]he child support obligation of a noncustodial parent can only be reduced prospectively from the date the motion for modification of child support is filed (emphasis added). Because this is a recent, uncontradicted court of appeals case interpreting a statute that is directly applicable to the facts in Trupp's case, Garcia properly relied upon it. Furthermore, Garcia's interpretation of this case was objectively reasonable. Because we find that the PDJ had no basis for deciding that Garcia inadequately investigated the relevant facts or law, we must next determine whether Garcia properly represented the facts and law in the complaint.