Opinion ID: 2608692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stipulation On Support Guidelines.

Text: In her suit Mrs. Henderson sought to have Lekvold's child support obligations enforced by the court in conformity with the Guidelines and as provided by the parties' stipulated divorce decree. Although Lekvold had for a time after his second salary increase paid the $315 a month as the Guidelines indicated, he had gone back to paying $270 per month. It is clear that Lekvold knew that he was supposed to conform to the Guidelines as concerns his salary increases and consequent increases in child support payments. As this Court said in Unser v. Unser, 86 N.M. 648, 651, 526 P.2d 790, 793 (1974): It is a long recognized rule that such settlements between husband and wife (of course in the absence of fraud) are highly favored in the law. (Citations omitted.) In Spingola, the mother relied on the Guidelines, but their use was not agreed upon or mandated by the decree. Nevertheless, we there held that it was error for the trial court to refuse to consider the Guidelines in ruling on a motion to modify. Lekvold's obligation for support is clearly set forth in the original decree. The Guidelines are incorporated by reference in that document, which also set forth precisely how the amounts are to be increased as his salary increases. There is nothing ambiguous about these provisions. All that is left for the trial court to do is to determine the amount due and enforce its collection. The court cannot properly modify the child support award retroactively, which is the effect of what occurred in the court below. Gomez v. Gomez, 92 N.M. 310, 587 P.2d 963 (1978). It was error for the trial court to refuse to enforce the terms of the original decree.