BINGHAM VS. BINGHAM (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court construed a merged child support agreement against the backdrop of a mid-term statutory change in the age of majority. When the 1969 agreement and decree were entered, NRS 129.010 set 21 as the age of majority for males; thus the parties intended the father's obligation to continue until the child reached 21. The 1973 amendment to NRS 129.010, declaring persons 18 and older capable of contracting and of lawful age, did not affect the father's obligation to pay child support until the child attained 21 or was emancipated. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 316 N.E.2d 207 (Ill. App. 1974); accord Ruhsam v. Ruhsam, 518 P.2d 576 (Ariz. 1974). The district court's contrary construction of the decree was error.

In plain language

When the Binghams divorced in 1969, they signed a settlement agreement in which the husband agreed to pay $100 per month to support each child "during the minority of said children." At that time, Nevada law set the age of majority for males at 21, so the parties intended support to continue until each child turned 21. The divorce decree approved and incorporated their agreement. In 1973, the Nevada Legislature amended the statute (NRS 129.010) to make 18 the age of full legal capacity. Relying on the change, the district court ruled that the father no longer had to help support the parties' son once the son reached the new "age of majority" of 18. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. When the agreement and decree were made, the parties contemplated that support would continue until the child reached 21, the then-existing age of majority. The later amendment lowering the age of majority to 18 did not cut off the father's obligation to pay support until the child turned 21 or was emancipated.