Opinion ID: 1214427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preclusion of CSE Assignment by ORS Assignment

Text: Next we address whether the assignments by the custodial parents to CSE are precluded by their earlier assignments to ORS. In these cases, the written assignments to ORS which were signed by Hansen and Carlson stated that the assignments included all child support due or to become due me or my child[]. The assignments ORS secured from Hansen and Carlson are authorized and required by 45 C.F.R. § 232.11, which provides in pertinent part, As a condition of eligibility for assistance, each applicant for or recipient of AFDC shall assign to the State any rights to support ... which have accrued at the time such assignment is executed. Utah has complied with and codified this requirement in section 62A-9-121(1)(a) of the Utah Code, which provides, The department shall obtain an assignment of support from each applicant or recipient regardless of whether the payment is court ordered. The federal regulations governing AFDC further provide that a state plan for the administration of AFDC shall provide that [w]hen a family ceases receiving assistance under the [AFDC program], the assignment of support rights under § 232.11 ... terminates, except with respect to the amount of any unpaid support obligation that has accrued under such assignment. 45 C.F.R. § 302.51(f). ORS does not argue, nor is there any evidence in the record to the contrary, that it has been granted a waiver from the requirements of this federal regulatory provision. ORS contends that these two provisions, along with the written assignments secured under them from Hansen and Carlson, provide ORS with an extremely broad assignment. ORS claims that this assignment encompasses any past-due child support that is owed or will ever be owed to Hansen or Carlson, even if it becomes past due long after either of them ceases receiving AFDC payments. Under the interpretation advanced by ORS, if the noncustodial parent were to miss several child-support payments many years after the custodial parent ceased receiving AFDC payments, the custodial parent could not collect those payments for the benefit of her children but would always be required to turn them over to ORS. In other words, the custodial parent could never collect any amount of past-due child support that was owed to her until the time when and if ORS successfully collected the amount owed to it. The combined language of sections 232.11 and 302.51(f) plainly does not support ORS's interpretation. The language of section 232.11 is clear. To receive AFDC payments, the applicant must assign to the state any past-due support that has accrued up to the time the assignment is made. Even if the language of section 232.11 were subject to more than one interpretation, section 302.51(f) clearly states that the assignment under section 232.11, whatever its scope may be, terminates when a family ceases receiving public assistance, except with respect to the amount of any unpaid support obligation that has accrued under such assignment. Thus, for the language of the written assignment to conform with the applicable federal regulations governing ORS's administration of AFDC, the words due or to become due must be read to encompass child support to become due only during the period in which the custodial parent is receiving AFDC. Therefore, any remaining assignment to ORS cannot include child support that becomes due after the custodial parent ceases receiving AFDC benefits. [6] The assignments made to CSE by Hansen and Carlson encompassed past-due child support that accrued after the termination of assistance, specifically for months during which they did not receive AFDC benefits. Therefore, the CSE assignments encompassed an entirely different claim than the earlier ORS assignments, and neither one is precluded by the other. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in ruling that CSE's assignments from Hansen and Carlson were not precluded by the previous assignments to ORS.