440 P.3d 264
Alaska2019Background
- Parents: Guy Berry (father, active-duty soldier) and Colleen Coulman (mother); daughter born May 2010; Coulman had sole physical custody.
- CSSD entered a child support order in May 2011 requiring Berry to pay $773/month.
- Coulman filed for custody in Alaska (2014); later moved (March 2016) to modify child support, alleging Berry's financial disclosures were out-of-date and income changed.
- Superior Court conducted proceedings, ordered updated disclosures, and ultimately entered a modified child support order (varying amounts to reflect deployment pay) effective as of the filing date (with a one-day clerical effective-date error).
- Berry appealed, arguing (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to modify CSSD’s 2011 order (claiming only CSSD or North Carolina had authority), (2) insufficient proof of a material change in circumstances under Rule 90.3, and (3) improper retroactive modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Berry) | Defendant's Argument (Coulman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alaska superior court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the 2011 support order | Alaska no longer had jurisdiction because parties/child did not reside in Alaska when modification was filed; FFCCSOA/UIFSA dictate only original tribunal or the obligor's new state may modify | Coulman: Berry placed support at issue by filing custody action in Alaska; Alaska statute (AS 25.25.205) permits modification if obligor is resident; Berry claimed Alaska residency | Court held Alaska had jurisdiction: AS 25.25.205 applies because Berry’s residence (domicile) was Alaska at time of filing (he maintained Alaska domicile via SCRA and intent to return) |
| Whether only CSSD (not superior court) could modify CSSD’s order | Only CSSD can modify the CSSD-issued order; superior court lacked authority | Coulman: "tribunal" in UIFSA includes both superior court and CSSD; superior court may modify if statutory prerequisites met | Court held "tribunal" includes both superior court and CSSD; superior court properly exercised jurisdiction to modify the order |
| Whether there was a material change of circumstances under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 warranting modification | Berry: aggregate change excluding temporary deployment pay is below 15% threshold; short-term deployment income should not justify modification | Coulman: actual income during the relevant past periods (including deployment pay) produced >15% aggregate change; past-period support should be based on actual income | Court held sufficient proof existed: using actual income across relevant periods (including deployment pay) exceeded 15% presumptive threshold and justified modification |
| Whether the modification was impermissibly retroactive | Berry: court improperly set effective date earlier than when motion was filed, creating retroactive modification | Coulman: effective date should be the filing date; any discrepancy was clerical | Court found a one-day retroactive effective-date error but deemed it de minimis; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Teseniar v. Spicer, 74 P.3d 910 (Alaska 2003) (analyzing AS 25.25.205 jurisdiction to modify child support)
- Bartlett v. State, Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Bartlett, 125 P.3d 328 (Alaska 2005) (discussing UIFSA and federal schemes for interstate child support uniformity)
- Swaney v. Granger, 297 P.3d 132 (Alaska 2013) (past-period child support should be based on a parent's actual income for that period)
- Millette v. Millette, 177 P.3d 258 (Alaska 2008) (retroactive child support modification is generally prohibited)
- Curley v. Curley, 588 P.2d 289 (Alaska 1979) (change in circumstances to modify support must be more permanent than temporary)