RAMACCIOTTI VS. RAMACCIOTTI (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reversed and remanded. The district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to extend the father's support obligation for the older child beyond her eighteenth birthday. Norris v. Norris, 93 Nev. 65, 560 P.2d 149 (1977), was inapposite because there the motion to modify was filed after the child turned 18, whereas here the mother filed and served her motion before the child's eighteenth birthday; NRS 125.510 had also been amended after Norris to allow support to continue until the child completes high school or turns 19. See NRS 125.510(6)(b). A motion to modify filed before the child's eighteenth birthday properly invokes the court's jurisdiction even if the hearing occurs afterward. The court held the amended NRS 125.510(6)(b) reflects legislative intent to permit modification until age 19 where the child remains enrolled in high school; had the legislature intended to require the motion to precede the child's eighteenth birthday, it could have so provided. The court noted the district court applied NRS 125.510(6) inconsistently, extending support for the younger child past 18 but refusing to do so for the older child. The court further held that extending support as of the motion's filing date is not an impermissible retroactive application of NRS 125.510(6). Although Day v. Day, 82 Nev. 317, 417 P.2d 914 (1966), and its progeny preclude retroactive modification increasing child support, a court may make modification effective as of the filing of the petition (or the date of the modification decree, or a time between), but not retroactively. Finally, the district court's income analysis relied on the wrong time period (1987 rather than 1989); given the income disparity, remand for a more complete analysis of the parties' incomes during the younger child's minority was warranted and could support modification based on changed circumstances under NRS 125B.080(2).

In plain language

Karen and Ralph Ramacciotti divorced in 1983. They had two daughters, Shannon (born 1969) and Tiffany (born 1971). The decree ordered Ralph to pay $250 per month per child until each turned 18, married, or was otherwise emancipated. Shortly afterward, in 1985, Nevada changed its law to extend child support until a child completes high school or turns 19. On October 29, 1987 - before Shannon turned 18 on November 1 - Karen asked the court to modify and extend Ralph's support obligation for both girls. The district court refused as to Shannon. It reasoned that it lacked power to change support for Shannon because the motion (in its view) came after Ralph's duty ended, and that the new law could not apply to her without being retroactive. Yet the court extended Ralph's support for Tiffany until she finished high school. It also found no reason to increase the monthly amount. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. First, Karen actually filed and served her motion before Shannon turned 18, so the case the district court relied on (which involved a motion filed after the child turned 18) did not apply, and the court did have jurisdiction to modify Shannon's support. Second, the amended statute lets support continue until 19 if the child is still in high school, and nothing requires the motion to be filed before the child turns 18. The court also pointed out the district court had applied the new law to Tiffany but inconsistently refused to for Shannon. Third, extending support as of the date Karen filed her motion is not an improper 'retroactive' application; a support modification can take effect as of the filing date. Finally, the district court had looked at the parties' 1987 incomes rather than their more recent, and more disparate, 1989 incomes. The court sent the case back for a fuller look at the parties' finances, which could support increasing Ralph's support for Tiffany based on changed circumstances.