MORELLI VS. MORELLI (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court held that a child is an intended third-party beneficiary of a parents' support agreement (Lipshie v. Tracy Investment Co., 93 Nev. 370, 566 P.2d 819 (1977)) and, although children ordinarily lack standing because the custodial parent enforces support, special circumstances - here the mother's death and the father's refusal of contact - conferred standing on the child (citing Drake v. Drake, 455 N.Y.S.2d 420 (App. Div. 1982)). Interpreting the contract to avoid harsh or unreasonable results (Mohr Park Manor, Inc. v. Mohr, 83 Nev. 107, 424 P.2d 101 (1967)), the court held the father could not avoid his support obligation by relying on his daughter's lack of communication when he himself wanted no contact; he owed $475 per month from age sixteen to twenty-two (65 months, $30,875), offset by $5,400 already paid. As to tuition, a third-party beneficiary takes subject to defenses valid between the contracting parties (Britton v. Groom, 373 P.2d 1012 (Okla. 1962)); because the tuition clause required the reasonable agreement of the now-deceased mother, performance became impossible rather than shifting to the daughter, so the trial court correctly found the father liable for tuition. Under NRS 99.040, each unpaid support installment accrues interest at 12 percent from when it became due; the case was remanded to compute interest and enter judgment.

In plain language

When the appellant's parents divorced in 1977, they signed a settlement agreement (later incorporated into the divorce decree) in which the father agreed to pay child support. The agreement said support would continue for each child until age 22 if the child attended college and kept at least a "C" average, and that the father would pay college tuition for a school the parents reasonably agreed upon. The appellant was 14 when the agreement was signed. About two years later, her mother died. After living with her father for a time, the appellant moved in with another family; the father paid that family $5,400 for her support until she turned 18, then paid nothing more. She went to college and always kept better than a "C" average. She later sued to enforce the support and tuition terms. The trial court ruled the father owed the tuition but not back child support, partly because it thought the daughter had no legal standing to enforce the agreement. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed on the child support. It held that the daughter was an intended third-party beneficiary of her parents' agreement and, given special circumstances (her mother's death and the father's refusal to have contact), had standing to enforce it. The father could not escape his obligation by pointing to the daughter's lack of communication when he himself wanted no contact. The court calculated that the father owed $475 per month for 65 months ($30,875), minus a $5,400 credit, plus statutory interest on each overdue payment. On tuition, the court agreed with the trial court that the father remained liable, but explained the reasoning differently. The case was sent back to calculate interest and enter judgment.