Opinion ID: 2116756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: change of circumstances requirement

Text: SDCL 25-7A-22 furnishes the rules for modifying a child support obligation. It provides in pertinent part: [A child support] obligor, an obligee or the assignee may file a petition ... to increase or decrease child support based on a change in circumstances. ... The matter shall be set for hearing before a referee ... appointed by the court, pursuant to statute, and after due notice to all parties.... The referee shall make his report to the court, recommending the amount of the monthly support obligation of the parent or for health insurance coverage. (Emphasis supplied). SDCL 25-7-6.1 thru -6.17 provide the child support guidelines which are used to establish child support obligations. SDCL 25-7-6.14 provides, An abatement of a portion of the child support may be ordered if a child spends more than twenty-nine consecutive days with the noncustodial parent. SDCL 25-7-6.7 provides in part: Deductions from monthly gross income shall be allowed as follows: .... (6) Payments made on other support and maintenance orders. Husband points out the last two statutes do not require a change of circumstances. Husband argues the last two statutes are contradictory to the change of circumstance statute and interprets them to mean no change of circumstances is necessary to modify the supplemental divorce decree. He argues the only way to reconcile the statutes is by interpreting the latter two statutes as containing their own per se changes in circumstances. We disagree. As Husband suggests, we must construe statutes according to their intent, and intent must be determined from the statutes as a whole, as well as enactments relating to the same subject. Border States Paving v. Dept. of Revenue, 437 N.W.2d 872, 874 (S.D.1989); Appeal of A.T. & T. Info. Systems, 405 N.W.2d 24, 27 (S.D.1987); Meyerink, 391 N.W.2d at 183; Simpson v. Tobin, 367 N.W.2d 757, 763 (S.D.1985). Moreover, the intent of a statute must be derived from its language and by giving the language its plain, ordinary and popular meaning. Matter of Estate of Pejsa, 459 N.W.2d 243, 246 (S.D.1990); State v. Ventling, 452 N.W.2d 123, 125 (S.D.1990). This rule holds true unless the legislation is ambiguous or its literal meaning is unreasonable. Famous Brands, 347 N.W.2d at 885; Appeal of A.T. & T., 405 N.W.2d at 27-28; Christopherson v. Reeves, 44 S.D. 634, 642, 184 N.W. 1015, 1017 (1921). See also SDCL 2-14-1 (1992). Finally, where statutes appear to conflict, it is our responsibility to give reasonable construction to both, and if possible, to give effect to all provisions under consideration, construing them together to make them harmonious and workable. Meyerink, 391 N.W.2d at 184; Karlen v. Janklow, 339 N.W.2d 322, 323 (S.D.1983); Hartpence v. Youth Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d 292, 295 (S.D.1982). We have consistently required a party seeking modification of a child support order to demonstrate a change in circumstances occurring since the original child support order was entered. Johnson v. Johnson, 468 N.W.2d 648, 650 (S.D.1991); Hoy v. Hoy, 391 N.W.2d 685, 689 (S.D.1986); State ex rel. Larsgaard v. Larsgaard, 298 N.W.2d 381, 384 (S.D.1980). [1] This is true even though the original child support order was based on a stipulation entered into between the parties. Brunick v. Brunick, 405 N.W.2d 633, 635 (S.D.1987); Jameson v. Jameson (Jameson II), 306 N.W.2d 240, 242 (S.D.1981); Blare v. Blare, 302 N.W.2d 787, 791 (S.D.1981). The change in circumstances requirement was adopted prior to the enactment of SDCL 25-7A-22 in 1986. SDCL 25-4-45 (1984) provides: In an action for divorce the court may, before or after judgment, give such direction for the custody, care, and education of the children of the marriage as may seem necessary or proper, and may at any time vacate or modify the same. Under this statute, this court has required a change of circumstances to justify a child support modification. See, e.g., Jameson II, 306 N.W.2d at 242. This statute survived the legislature's extensive revision of SDCL ch. 25-7 and ch. 25-7A in 1989. Where a statute, which has been construed by this court, is reenacted in substantially the same terms, the legislature is presumed to have been familiar with the judicial construction and to have adopted it as part of the law. Stormo v. City of Dell Rapids, 75 S.D. 582, 588, 70 N.W.2d 831, 834, 51 A.L.R.2d 1123 (1955). [2] In 1986, the South Dakota Legislature amended SDCL 25-7-7 to provide a schedule and guidelines for setting child support obligations. 1986 S.D. Laws ch. 218, § 11. SDCL 25-7-7, as it then existed, included a proviso that [a]ll orders for support entered and in effect prior to July 1, 1986, may be modified in accordance with the guidelines without requiring a showing of a change in circumstances from the entry of the order. Id. (Emphasis added). This proviso clearly indicated the legislature's familiarity with the change in circumstances requirement construed by this court. SDCL 25-7-7 was repealed in 1989. 1989 S.D. Laws, ch. 220, § 19. A very similar proviso is currently codified at SDCL 25-7-6.13 which was enacted contemporaneously with SDCL 25-7-6.6, -6.7, and 6.14. [3] 1989 S.D. Laws, ch. 220. Indeed, most of what is now codified at SDCL 25-7-6.1, to -6.17 was formerly contained within SDCL 25-7-7. Thus, we must presume when the legislature reenacted the new child support guidelines, it intended to retain the change in circumstances requirement for modification. See Campbell v. City of Chamberlain, 78 S.D. 245, 100 N.W.2d 707 (1960); Stormo, 75 S.D. at 588, 70 N.W.2d at 834; Cahalan v. Terry, 73 S.D. 531, 45 N.W.2d 460 (1951).
As the discussion above indicates, the legislature was fully aware of the change in circumstances requirement when it reenacted the child support guidelines in 1989. Nonetheless, it included a provision which permits a court to abate a party's child support obligation when a child spends over twenty-nine days with the obligor spouse. SDCL 25-7-6.14. Contrary to Husband's argument, this provision does not mean such an event is a per se change of circumstances which would justify a modification. In contrast to the meaning of modification, abate means: to demolish; to put an end to; to do away with; or to nullify, make void, or diminish. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2 (1976). Use of the abatement language indicates the legislature contemplated the obligation would have already accrued when the obligor spouse seeks abatement. This construction is supported by the 1988 Report of the South Dakota Commission on Child Support (Commission Report) which prepared and recommended the 1989 amendments. [4] That report states: Courts throughout the state vary on their method of handling child support when a parent has the children for an extended time, such as an entire summer. Evidence revealed that the cost savings to the custodial parent when they do not have the children during substantial periods is approximately 30 to 50 percent. Therefore, the Commission is recommending the Court be allowed to grant a reduction during those extended periods of visitation. The Commission could not agree on any particular recommended amount for the reduction. The proposed language provides an after-the-fact abatement to avoid the situation where a parent does not actually exercise extended visitation yet receives a reduction in child support. The Commission also recommends that this abatement only be allowed for periods of 30 days or more of continuous visitation to avoid the potential of the parents fighting over how many days they spend with the child, not out of a desire to spend time with their children, but out of a desire to reduce their child support. Report of the South Dakota Commission on Child Support 15 (1988) (emphasis addedfootnote deleted). Footnote nine of the Commission Report provides an illustration: For example, if a parent exercises visitation in June for the entire month, he or she would be entitled to the abatement in the July child support. If a 50 percent abatement were allowed, the July payment would be reduced by 50 percent. Id. Modification of a divorce decree, on the other hand, implies an alteration which introduces or deletes some elements of the decree but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter intact. See Black's Law Dictionary 905 (5th ed. 1979). Thus, there is no conflict between the change in circumstances requirement in SDCL 25-7A-22 and the abatement provision. As Husband suggests, the extended visitation provides the basis for a trial court's abatement of accrued child support. While the court may have granted Husband an abatement after the visitation occurred, Husband did not petition for an abatement. Instead, he sought modification of his child support obligation prior to any visitation. Husband has not demonstrated a change in circumstances to justify a forward-reaching modification of his child support obligation. The stipulation provided for extended visitation with no abatement of child support. The circumstances simply have not changed since entry of the divorce decree.
The same analysis applies to the perceived conflict between SDCL 25-7A-22 (requiring a change in circumstances) and SDCL 25-7-6.6 and -6.7. [5] Again, the latter statutes are part of what was originally included in SDCL 25-7-7 as it appeared in 1987. 1986 S.D. Laws Ch. 218, § 11. That statute specifically recognized the change in circumstances requirement. There is, in reality, no conflict between the rules governing the circuit court in determining child support obligations, which take into account income and any deductions, and the rules governing the referee, which require a change in circumstances before a party can obtain a modification. Therefore, in order to obtain a reduction of his child support obligation, Husband was required to show circumstances had changed in the time between entry of the supplemental judgment and his petition for modification. Here, Husband, an attorney, voluntarily negotiated for and entered into an agreement regarding child support. The very same agreement contained the alimony payments and the visitation schedule, including the extended visitation (which portion was drafted by Husband himself). Husband testified during cross-examination, as a result of statutory factors, which I considered when I entered into that agreement, and the fact that, yes, I've met my obligation, that I'm entitled to a modification. Husband further testified, I had looked at the law before that. I understand that I would be entitled to an abatement and that's why I'm here today.... I took into consideration the law in existence at the time, and the right to an abatement and the right to a decrease as a result of ... alimony payments made. There is no indication the income level of either party has changed since entry of the supplemental decree. The only changes were the payment of alimony and the extended visitation of two of the three children with Husband, both of which were contemplated by the stipulation. This case reduces itself to a situation where Husband entered into a harsh bargain contemplating, through his own interpretation of the child support guidelines, an escape from the bargain a short time later. The situation was similar in Jameson v. Jameson (Jameson I), 90 S.D. 179, 239 N.W.2d 5 (S.D.1976) where the husband, with the advice of an attorney and tax experts entered into a harsh divorce stipulation which left little for himself. Id. 90 S.D. at 183, 239 N.W.2d at 7. There, we refused to construe the husband's subsequent realization that he could not carry out the terms of the stipulation as a change justifying a modification of child support. Id. Likewise here, we cannot say there has been a change in circumstances sufficient to support a modification. It was incumbent on Husband to protect himself at the time he entered into the stipulation. Husband further argues part of the stipulation which reads Plaintiff (Husband) will pay to defendant (Wife) as support for the minor children ... $800 per month ... as set forth at SDCL 25-5-18.1 and the Child Support Guidelines of the State of South Dakota should be interpreted to include reductions in accordance with SDCL 25-7-6.6 (definition of gross income) & SDCL 25-7-6.7(6) (deductions for other support and maintenance orders) and SDCL 25-7-6.14 (abatement for extended visitation). A petition for modification is not a proper method of achieving this interpretationat least absent a change in circumstances. The referee and the circuit court were correct in refusing to modify the support obligation. [6]