308 P.3d 1270
Kan. Ct. App.2013Background
- Papineau and Stephenson divorced in 2006; Papineau was ordered to pay $782/month child support and had custody obligations for two minor children.
- In 2010 Papineau became totally disabled, received benefits from a private LTD policy, but continued timely paying $782/month child support and did not seek modification.
- In March 2012 the SSA awarded Papineau disability benefits; the children were awarded $802/month and a retroactive lump-sum of ~$5,600; Stephenson was designated representative payee and deposited the lump sum (for college).
- Papineau moved in August 2012 to modify support and sought reimbursement for the months covered by the retroactive lump-sum SSA payment (arguing he effectively paid twice).
- The district court denied the motion; it held excess SSA benefits inure to the child and that the representative payee need not reimburse the obligor parent; Papineau appealed.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding obligor parents are not entitled to reimbursement for timely child support payments covering months for which children later receive retroactive SSA benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an obligor parent is entitled to reimbursement of child support paid for months later covered by a retroactive SSA lump-sum to the children | Papineau: timely payments should be reimbursed because retroactive SSA benefits create a duplicative payment and children have no equitable right to a double recovery; failure to reimburse disincentivizes compliance | Stephenson/district court: SSA benefits for children belong to the children; any excess beyond the support obligation is a gratuity that inures to the child and no reimbursement is required | Held: No reimbursement. Court follows rule that SSA benefits received for the child that overlap paid child support are not returned to the obligor; excess benefits inure to the child |
| Whether a private insurer’s subrogation claim affects obligor’s right to reimbursement | Papineau: if insurer subrogates and recovers, he may effectively pay three times and equity favors reimbursement | Stephenson/district court: insurer is not a party; subrogation is not before the court and does not change the rule that benefits belong to the child | Held: Court will not consider subrogation because insurer is not a party and record lacks details; subrogation does not entitle obligor to relief here |
| Whether prior Kansas precedent requires a different result when obligor timely paid support (versus defaulted) | Papineau: Andler/Hohmann/Taber logically support crediting paid support when SSA benefits later cover the same period | Stephenson/district court: Andler and related cases treat excess SSA benefits as gratuities; when SSA benefits belong to the child, paid support is voluntary overpayment and not recoverable | Held: Court interprets precedent and persuasive out-of-state authority to deny reimbursement despite factual distinction that obligor paid support |
| Whether the record permitted calculation of any reimbursement amount | Papineau: stipulation approximated $5,600 and $802/month; he seeks reimbursement up to $782/month for months covered | Stephenson/district court: stipulated facts did not identify exact months covered so reimbursement calculation was unclear | Held: Even if relief were legally available, record did not permit precise calculation; court still denies on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Andler v. Andler, 217 Kan. 538 (Kan. 1975) (monthly SSA dependent benefits credited against parent’s monthly child support obligation; excess treated as gratuity to child)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 21 Kan. App. 2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995) (SSA child benefits creditable against current support for corresponding month; not creditable against pre-benefit arrearages)
- In re Marriage of Hohmann, 47 Kan. App. 2d 117 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012) (retroactive SSA lump-sum may be applied to arrearages; courts observe majority rule that noncustodial parent is not entitled to reimbursement when support was timely paid)
- In re Marriage of Taber, 47 Kan. App. 2d 841 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012) (reaffirms Hohmann on using retroactive SSA benefits to offset arrearages; notes excess as gratuity)
- Keith v. Purvis, 982 So. 2d 1033 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (rejects reimbursement claim where child received retroactive SSA lump-sum and obligor had timely paid support)
- Steel v. Hartwick, 209 W. Va. 706 (W. Va. 2001) (children entitled to both child support and retroactive SSA benefits; noncustodial parent not entitled to reimbursement)
- Davis v. Davis, 780 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2010) (recognizes administrative rule and grants reimbursement/credit to obligor for child support actually paid during period covered by retroactive SSA lump-sum)