Court Opinion

ID: 9852333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:28:43.20545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:25.968719
License: Public Domain

MacLaughlin, Justice
(concurring and dissenting).
I agree with the concurring and dissenting opinion1 of Mr. Justice Kelly for the reasons which he states and for the reasons stated herein.
First, I have little doubt that, had the legislature expressly stated that L. 1973, c. 725, § 74, did not apply retroactively to terminate child support provisions contained in divorce decrees entered prior to the effective date of the act, this court would hold contempt proceedings to be applicable to enforce such decrees. Given our opinion in Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 229 N. W. 2d 131 (1975), which obviously has the same effect as if the legislature had included an express provision, I can perceive no reason why contempt proceedings should not be held applicable to enforce the decrees in question. Surely, that specific provision by the legislature would have evidenced an interest of the state in those children covered by decrees issued prior to the effective date of the act, and the fact that the same result is obtained through judicial construction rather than legislative enactment should not affect the decision which we make on this issue.
Second, it seems to me that the results of the majority opinion will lead to an adverse effect upon the children of those persons of lesser means. A father who might be delinquent in his support payments, who is otherwise, financially solvent, w^ill no doubt feel compelled to comply with the order for support because of the fear that a judgment will be obtained against him which can be successfully satisfied. On the other hand, those persons required to pay support who are, for all effects and purposes, judgment-proof because of a lack of assets or an insuffi*507ciency of income will feel free, if otherwise inclined to do so, to fail to make support payments under the assumption that the other party will find it a useless act to attempt to enforce the support payments through suit and resultant judgment. Therefore, as a practical result, it appears to me that we have seriously undercut the effect of the opinion in Brugger, at least as it might affect children from the less affluent part of our society. On the other hand, it is common knowledge that if contempt is a part of the available remedy, it has a salutary effect in encouraging a parent to comply with a court order of support even if the parent is one with a low income' or few assets.
Finally, in my judgment, Lieder v. Straub, 230 Minn. 460, 42 N. W. 2d 11 (1950), is distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Lieder, the children involved had reached the age of majority at the time contempt proceedings were brought against the father, and he had no duty of support whatsoever at the time of the court proceedings. In the instant case and in Brugger, the children involved are under the age of 21 and, as we hold herein and in Brugger, the children are still entitled to be the recipients of support under the orders involved in these cases. Therefore, in Lieder, the defendant no longer had any obligation at the time of the contempt proceedings to support the children while here the plaintiff does have an obligation to support his child until she reaches the age of 21. To me, this clearly distinguishes the instant case from Lieder, and in my judgment the reliance on Lieder in the majority opinion is misplaced.