Court Opinion

ID: 9794179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:00:52.842019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:42.005720
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Justice,
Retired, specially concurring with whom URBIGKIT, Justice, joins.
I concur in the result determined by the majority; however, my reasons for affirming the district court differ slightly from that of the majority.
I would narrow the issue before the court as follows:
Do Wyoming courts have equitable power to alter child support arrearage installment payments set by a responding state in a URESA action?
Numerous courts have held that an order rendered by a responding court in a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) proceeding should not be considered binding in a subsequent action to enforce the original support order, to the extent that the URESA order modifies the original order. Annotation, Construction and Effect of Provision of Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act That *534No Support Order Shall Supercede or Nullify Any Other Order, 31 A.L.R.4th 347, 365 (1984).
The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) or similar legislation has been adopted in all the states. The model act provides, in part:
A support order made by a court of this State pursuant to this Act does not nullify and is not nullified by a support order made by a court of this State pursuant to any other law or by a support order made by a court of any other state pursuant to a substantially similar act or any other law, regardless of priority of issuance, unless otherwise specifically provided by the court. Amounts paid for a particular period pursuant to any support order made by the court of another state shall be credited against the amounts accruing or accrued for the same period under any support order made by the court of this State.
Uniform Enforcement of Support Act § 31, 9B U.L.A. 531 (1987). Wyoming has a provision similar to § 31 of the Model Act, W.S. 20-4-131, as does Missouri, Mo.Ann. Stat. § 454.280 (1986).
In this case the trial court did what the statute specifies. It determined the amount of child support due under the original support order (Washington). It credited appellant with payments made under a State of Missouri order and determined the arrearage to be $7,895. The court then fixed the installment payment at $125 per month rather than $25 per month. URESA legislation does not' prohibit the district court from acting as it did in this case; that is, adjusting the monthly arrearage installment payments. See cases supporting this determination listed at 31 A.L. R.4th 365-66.
A child support order provided for in the divorce decree is not superseded by a subsequent support order rendered by another state in a URESA action. The authority of the court originally ordering child support payments is not affected, nor is its order modified by an order of the court of a responding state fixing another or different amount. Despain v. Despain, 78 Idaho 185, 300 P.2d 500 (1956); Banton v. Mathers, 159 Ind.App. 634, 309 N.E.2d 167 (1974); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 476 S.W.2d 197 (Ky.1972); Howard v. Howard, 191 So.2d 528 (Miss.1966).
It was noted in Nissen v. Miller, 642 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tenn.App.1982) that:
The majority of courts in other jurisdictions hold U.R.E.S.A. orders do not supersede prior support orders. See e.g., Despain v. Despain, 78 Idaho 185, 300 P.2d 500 (1956); Howard v. Howard, 191 So.2d 528 (Miss.1966); Campbell v. Jenne, 172 Mont. 219, 563 P.2d 574 (1977); Foster v. Marshman, 96 Nev. 475, 611 P.2d 197 (1980); Oglesby v. Oglesby, 29 Utah 2d 491 [419], 510 P.2d 1106 (1973).
Appellant contends in one of his issues on appeal that appellee did not present any evidence of a change in circumstances to justify the modification. At trial in the Wyoming district court, there was evidence of a substantial change in circumstances. In the 1981 Missouri URESA action, appellant was ordered to pay $200 per month child support. At the hearing in Wyoming on this matter in January 1988, the evidence showed that the parties’ children had become of age, were emancipated and the $200 per month child support obligation had been discharged. Furthermore, at trial appellee attempted to show further financial change in circumstances. Appellant objected to this testimony and the court sustained the objection. Appellant cannot now complain that a change in circumstances was not shown.
In summary, I would hold that a proceeding under URESA is a supplemental remedy in the courts of a sister state for the enforcement of orders of support. Child support provisions provided for in an original divorce decree are not superseded in a subsequent URESA action and full faith and credit need not be given to the responding state’s judgment insofar as it modifies the original decree.