KENNEDY VS. KENNEDY (CHILD SUPPORT)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

In an action to domesticate a California divorce decree and recover child support arrearages, the district court granted full faith and credit, entered a $7,837 arrearages judgment, and prospectively reduced the obligor's support. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Interest on arrearages: Whether a divorced spouse is entitled to interest on unpaid support due under a decree is governed by the law of the state where the decree was rendered. See Slade v. Slade, 468 P.2d 627 (N.M. 1970); In re Kern's Estate, 147 P.2d 498 (Or. 1944). Under California law, a divorced spouse is entitled to interest at the legal rate on support arrearages accrued under a dissolution decree. Huellmantel v. Huellmantel, 57 P. 582 (Cal. 1899); In re Marriage of Popenhager, 160 Cal. Rptr. 379 (Ct. App. 1979); In re Marriage of Hoffee, 131 Cal. Rptr. 637 (Ct. App. 1976). The district court erred by omitting interest from the date each payment was due; that portion of the arrearages judgment was reversed and remanded for calculation and inclusion of interest. Installment enforcement: Liquidation of an arrearages judgment may be scheduled as the district court deems proper. Reed v. Reed, 88 Nev. 329, 497 P.2d 896 (1972); see also Chesler v. Chesler, 87 Nev. 335, 486 P.2d 1198 (1971); Messenger v. Messenger, 297 P.2d 988 (Cal. 1956). Installment payments were permissible, but because the $50 monthly amount did not account for past and future interest, the court vacated that amount and remanded for a payment schedule allowing liquidation on a reasonable basis. Prospective modification without a formal motion: The court rejected the contention that the district court could not modify the decree prospectively absent a formal motion, where appellant cited no relevant authority that the court cannot, on its own motion and with adequate notice, raise modification; appellant did not claim insufficient notice, and the court took evidence of the obligor's finances and reduced support upon a showing of changed circumstances. Remaining contentions were without merit.

In plain language

Yvonne Kennedy went to a Nevada district court to enforce a California divorce decree. She asked the court to recognize the California decree as a Nevada judgment and to let her collect the child support that her former husband, Jerry Kennedy, had fallen behind on. After several hearings, the district court gave full faith and credit to the California decree, awarded Yvonne a judgment of $7,837 for the past-due support (arrearages), and - going forward - reduced Jerry's future child support obligation. Yvonne appealed on several points. The Nevada Supreme Court gave her a partial win. First, and most importantly, the court held that the district court was wrong not to add interest to the arrearages judgment. Whether a divorced spouse is entitled to interest on unpaid support is governed by the law of the state that issued the decree - here, California - and California allows interest at the legal rate on support arrearages from the date each payment was due. So the court reversed that part of the judgment and sent it back to calculate and include interest on each missed payment from its due date. Second, the court agreed that a court may allow a past-due support judgment to be paid off in installments (here, $50 per month), but because that monthly amount did not account for the interest that should have been included, the court vacated the $50 figure and sent it back for a new payment schedule that liquidates the arrearages (with interest) on a reasonable basis. Third, the court rejected Yvonne's argument that the district court could not reduce future support without a formal motion to modify. She cited no authority that a court cannot, on its own motion and with adequate notice, raise modification, and she did not claim she lacked notice; the court had taken evidence of Jerry's finances and reduced support prospectively upon a showing of changed circumstances.