170 A.3d 803
Me.2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2008; mother (West-Harper) awarded primary residence of two children and father (Teele) ordered to pay child support.
- Teele applied for Social Security disability in Sept 2014, continued making court-ordered child support while application was pending.
- SSA granted Teele disability in March 2016 and paid each child a retroactive lump-sum dependent benefit for Oct 2014–Feb 2016 and began monthly benefits thereafter.
- Teele moved to modify the 2008 child support order in May 2016, asking both for an ongoing reduction and reimbursement/credit for child support he paid during the period covered by the SSA lump-sum benefits.
- The District Court amended Teele’s support obligation prospectively and granted a credit for dependent benefits only as to obligations covered by the amended order, but declined to order reimbursement for payments made before May 2016, reasoning the 2008 order did not provide the §2107 credit and §2009(2) limits retroactivity to date of service.
- Teele appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2107 entitles Teele to reimbursement/credit for child support he paid before an order identified dependent-benefits credit | Teele: §2107 requires credit for dependent benefits paid to children due to obligor’s disability and thus he should get reimbursement for overlap period | West-Harper: §2107 credit must be identified in the applicable child support order; 2008 order did not include that finding so no retroactive reimbursement | Held: §2107 grants a credit only when the court issues a child support order that includes the statutory findings; because the 2008 order lacked those findings, court lacked authority to credit payments made under that order |
| Whether amended order could be made retroactive to cover SSA entitlement period (Oct 2014) despite service in May 2016 (19‑A M.R.S. §2009(2)) | Teele: common‑law Wood exception allows retroactivity to the date support obligations effectively changed (here, when SSA entitlement began) | West-Harper: §2009(2) limits retroactivity to date the modification petition was served; Wood’s omitted exception is not available to benefit Teele | Held: §2009(2) permits retroactivity only to date of service (May 2016); Wood exception does not entitle Teele to retroactive credit to Oct 2014; amended order therefore only applied back to service date |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Young, 973 A.2d 765 (Me. 2009) (§2107 requires court to determine obligation and include findings in order before credit applies)
- Wood v. Wood, 407 A.2d 282 (Me. 1979) (common-law rule on limited retroactivity of child-support modifications)
- Verite v. Verite, 151 A.3d 1 (Me. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles and de novo review)
- Brochu v. McLeod, 148 A.3d 1220 (Me. 2016) (discussion recognizing limits on retroactive credits and arrearage treatment)
- Walker v. Walker, 868 A.2d 887 (Me. 2005) (statutory interpretation standards)
- Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012) (avoid treating statutory language as meaningless)