Duthoy v. Duthoy
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 868
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Duthoy challenges a Missouri circuit court summary judgment upholding Minnesota-ordered child support enforcement by the Division.
- Minnesota’s support order—issued June 1995—provided support until age 18 or 20 if still in secondary school, plus emancipation, adoption, marriage, or death.
- The Minnesota order was registered in Florida in 2009 and later involvement shifted among Lyon County, Florida, and Missouri enforcement actors.
- Cameron moved to Missouri in 2009 to live with Kangas, attending high school there; no custody modification or Missouri registration of the Minnesota order occurred.
- Cameron turned 18 in 2009 but remained in high school until graduation in May 2011; the circuit court held emancipation occurred at graduation, not on his eighteenth birthday.
- Duthoy appealed the emancipation timing, arrearage handling under UIFSA, and any alleged modification of the Minnesota order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Cameron become emancipated under Minnesota law? | Duthoy: emancipation automatically at 18. | Division: emancipation upon high school graduation if still in school. | Emancipation occurred at high school graduation (May 2011); not automatically at 18. |
| Is failure to register the Minnesota order before enforcement a basis to vacate arrears? | UIFSA requires registration before enforcement and arrearage attribution. | Registration not required before initial enforcement action; arrears upheld. | Registration not a prerequisite to the April 2010 enforcement letter; arrearage not vacated. |
| Did assigning the support obligation to Kangas/State constitute a modification of the Minnesota order? | Assignment to Kangas or State improperly modified the order. | Assignment occurred by operation of law under §454.455.1; no modification. | No modification; Kangas’ role as caretaker relative and assignment to the Division proper under law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maid v. Hansen, 694 N.W.2d 78 (Minn.App.2005) (extends the definition of 'child' beyond a single statutory category)
- Jarvela v. Burke, 678 N.W.2d 68 (Minn.App.2004) (child remains unemancipated if within any statutory definition of 'child')
- Maki, 694 N.W.2d 84 (Minn.App.2005) (emphasizes continued support where child fits remaining definitions)
- Schultz v. Schultz, 495 N.W.2d 463 (Minn.App.1993) (extension of support past eighteen requires modification procedures)