In re the Marriage of Brown
291 P.3d 55
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Kristin Brown petitioned for divorce from Jared Brown in 2006 with two children; temporary child-support orders were issued and modified during pendency.
- By final divorce hearing in 2009 Jared owed $15,524 in unpaid child support.
- At the final hearing the district court stated the parties were to have no arrearages and offset various sums, effectively discharging past-due support.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on most issues but upheld discharge of arrearage relying on Edwards v. Edwards and related reasoning.
- This Court granted review limited to whether the district court could discharge the past-due support under modern statutes after Edwards.
- Statutory changes since Edwards include (a) limits on vacating/interlocutory orders, (b) distinct provisions for ex parte orders, (c) retroactivity limitations on modifications, and (d) enhanced enforcement mechanisms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60-1610(a)(1) retroactivity limits vacating past-due support | Brown argues Edwards is overridden by post-Edwards statutes. | Brown contends Schoby controls, limiting retroactivity to prospective effects. | Yes; retroactivity is limited to prospective effects. |
| Whether Edwards remains valid for interlocutory child-support orders | Edwards should govern as to vacating arrearages from pendente lite orders. | Statutes after 1982 and 1991 restrict vacating past-due amounts. | Edwards is limited; statute controls for vacating past-due under interlocutory orders. |
| Authority to discharge arrearages under a final divorce decree given changes since Edwards | District court could discharge arrearages from interlocutory orders. | Statutes limit retroactivity; discharge must be prospective. | District court could not discharge past-due under the interlocutory order; remand for clarification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Edwards, 182 Kan. 737 (1958) (interlocutory child support may be modified; past-due installments not final and not subject to execution)
- Marriage of Schoby, 269 Kan. 114 (2000) (retroactivity of modification limited to date at least one month after motion to modify; prospetive effect)
- Earls v. Earls, 26 Kan. 178 (1881) (not appealable pendente lite orders; final judgment concept)
- State v. Chavez, 292 Kan. 464 (2011) (specific statute controls over general when overlapping)
- In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53 (2007) (principle of specific over general statutes; retroactivity considerations)