Court Opinion

ID: 9561993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:20:13.629226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:09.630569
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which ROONEY, J., joins.
I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion for the reasons stated. But I cannot agree with the rule of law set forth in the majority opinion which states:
“ * * * [Ujntil they [arrearages] are established by a formal order or decree of the court as past due and owing, a final judgment does not exist and such payments may be modified in the same manner as future support payments.”
Such a rule encourages a person to default in his support payments whilst avoiding process of the court that originally ordered support. He later surfaces at a fortuitous time in a more favorable jurisdiction, with a large arrearage, and may be able to convince a sympathetic judge to forgive his dereliction. In Salmeri v. Salmeri, Wyo., 554 P.2d 1244 (1976), we held that a judgment for arrearages was not subject to modification, and a divorce decree could only be modified as to future alimony and support payments.
The majority’s distinction that an obligation to pay arrearages must be reduced to a formal judgment before a court lacks authority to modify it seems untenable. The proposition remains that one seeking exoneration from arrearages in support payments may find a sympathetic judge elsewhere who is willing to grant him absolution from his sins.