Scungio v. Scungio
2012 OK 90
| Okla. | 2012Background
- 2004 separation agreement contemplated special-needs children and a no-modification provision with mutual assent for changes.
- Divorce action filed in 2007; October 2009 decree incorporated the agreement; Mother custodial, Father supported.
- 2009–2010 DHS involvement: notices of necessity and redirection of support payments; matter transferred to district court.
- July 2011 Mother moved to dismiss DHS modification petition, citing Parham and arguing the transfer procedure wasn't statute-authorized.
- Trial court denied dismissal, held modification could proceed; petition certified for interlocutory appeal; this Court granted review on procedure and substance.
- Court held transfer of the modification issue from administrative to district court authorized by statute and that the parties intended no modification without mutual consent; remanded to deny modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DHS transfer to district court was statute-authorized | Father argues transfer was permissible; no new motion needed | Mother argues transfer unauthorized; requires new district court motion | Transfer authorized; no new motion required |
| Whether the no-modification clause and governing-law provision resolve the modification issue | Father contends no-modification clause controls, rendering modification statute inapplicable | Mother contends governing law and contract language support no modification only with mutual consent | Ambiguity resolved by four-corners review; intent to be free from modification statutes affirmed; denial of modification on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Parham v. Parham, 2010 OK 24 (Okla. 2010) (requires clear expression of intent to avoid modification statutes)
- Parkey v. Parkey, 1962 OK 110 (Okla. 1962) (contractual conditions for modification must align with best interests of child)
- Kittredge v. Kittredge, 1995 OK 30 (Okla. 1995) (mutual consent provisions require explicit intent to avoid statutory terms)
- Oklahoma Oncology & Hematology, P.C. v. U.S. Oncology, Inc., 2007 OK 12 (Okla. 2007) (contract interpretation when ambiguity is present; four-corners approach; de novo review of law)
- Paclawski v. Bristol Laboratories, Inc., 1967 OK 21 (Okla. 1967) (ambiguous contract interpreted by surrounding circumstances)