Opinion ID: 901028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in awarding Deanna delinquent child support in the full amount of the prior court order for the year 2001, and for the months of January through October, 2002, even though Deanna had filed a motion for modification requesting a lesser amount.

Text: [¶ 21.] In Deanna's October 2001 motion, she sought a judgment against Daniel for $5,568.03 in child support arrearages. That amount was not, however, based upon the prior court ordered obligation of $798.04/$722.64 per month: she only requested $428.31 per month. Deanna's $428.31 request was based upon her motion for a modification. Deanna's request was calculated by offsetting each party's obligations because they were equally sharing physical custody. [6] Deanna stated: Even though [Daniel] and I have been sharing custody equally, I believe that I am entitled to child support inasmuch as his salary exceeds mine. I believe that [Daniel] should have paid me child support in the sum of $428.31 which is the difference between what he was to pay ($722.64) when I had full custody and my financial obligation [294.33, her 29% share of the joint obligation] as the custodial parent; i.e. $722.64-$294.33 = $428.31. [¶ 22.] Deanna's request for a modification before her October 2001 motion would have required the trial court to retroactively modify the child support that Daniel was ordered to pay under the prior court order. However, as the trial court recognized, [i]t is well established that: `[a]ny unpaid support bec[omes] an unpaid judgment against [the payor spouse] as a matter of law, not subject to retroactive modification.' Faulk v. Faulk, 2002 SD 51, ¶ 12, 644 N.W.2d 632, 634 (further citations omitted). Moreover, [s]tatutorily, courts and administrative entities may not retroactively modify past due child support obligations except for the period in which there is a pending petition for modification. Vander Woude, 501 N.W.2d at 363 (citing SDCL 25-7-7.3). Even then, a court may modify only from the date that notice of hearing of the petition has been given.... SDCL 25-7-7.3. Thus, we must separately analyze the arrearages accruing before Deanna's motion for modification and notice of hearing and those accruing thereafter.