Court Opinion

ID: 9657990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:43:12.839165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:50.139752
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
dissenting.
This appeal was argued on the premise that the McHenry County district court had no authority to amend the support order of *797the Ward County district court. Were it not for URESA, that might well be true. See Nygord v. Dietz, 332 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1983). However, as the majority opinion notes, once recourse is had to URESA the rules change and the specific statutory provisions contained therein permit the responding court to modify the support order under certain circumstances. I therefore agree with nearly all of the analysis of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act contained in the majority opinion. I cannot, however, agree with the conclusion reached therein and, as a result, I dissent.
In the best of all worlds the trial courts would foresee all issues that might be raised on appeal and therefore meticulously prepare the orders which we review on appeal so there would be no question as to intent. Neither the trial courts nor, for that matter, this court can, in preparing the opinions and orders, foresee every issue that will arise in the future which will require an interpretation of an opinion or order. In this instance I believe the Ward County district court correctly interpreted the order of the McHenry County district court.
I would not object to applying prospectively the rule adopted by the majority opinion that the responding court must, in so many words, specifically state it nullifies the order for child support contained in the judgment attempted to be enforced. However, to conclude, after the fact, as does the majority opinion, that the August 29, 1980, order of the McHenry County district court does not so specifically provide is too formalistic.
Short of stating that the Ward County judgment is hereby modified or nullified, it is apparent to me that the August 1980 order of the McHenry County district court did specifically provide that it modified the Ward County judgment. As an example, it provided that no support payments would be due “as long as the two minor children are in the custody of the Respondent.” Although there apparently is some issue as to the months that the children were in the custody of Preston Fennell, that order, to me, clearly provides that it modifies the Ward County judgment which required payments each month without exception until the youngest child reached her 18th birthday. The obvious reason for this modification was that Preston would have the responsibility of providing for the children while they were in his custody and that he should not also have to make payments for those months. To now conclude, as does the majority opinion, that Preston must make payments for those months the children were in his custody is not only unjust, it is contrary to the specific provisions of the order.
I agree that past-due and unpaid arrear-ages cannot be modified even under URE-SA, and I therefore would remand for the sole purpose of permitting amendment of the judgment to include that amount. In other respects I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
LEVINE, J., concurs.