Family law cases can be incredibly litigious, so courts usually encourage the parties to agree rather than litigate, in the best interests of the children.
But there is a limit to what extent Oregon courts will enforce a parental agreement, as the Oregon Court of Appeals made clear in last week's opinion Kim v. Kinnersley.
The facts in Kim are straightforward. Under the original parenting plan, the mother had primary over the parties' minor son. Many years later, the parents agreed to switch custody. Under the new plan, the parties agreed to resolve child support issues through the Oregon Department of Justice's Administrative Hearings Process.
In June 2022, the father filed a motion to modify child support, in which he asked the court to order the mother to pay half of their son's boarding school tuition and unreimbursed medical expenses. He claimed that mother was refusing to cooperative with the administrative procedure. Finally, the father asked the court to order retroactive child support starting in September 2020. The father served the mother modification papers on July 11, 2022.
The mother objected to several of father's claims, but she did agree that whatever amount she owed could be made retroactive.
The trial court entered a supplemental judgment ordering the mother to pay back child support and unreimbursed medical expenses, retroactive to September 2021.
The mother appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. As the Court explained, Oregon courts have always interpreted child support statutes to modify child “only prospectively,” not retroactively. Because the mother was not served with father's modification motion until July 11, 2022, the trial court could order child support and any interest retroactive no earlier than this date.
Among other arguments, the father argued that the Court of Appeals should uphold the trial court's ruling because the mother “stipulated” to an earlier starting date for child support, citing ORS 107.135(15).
The Court rejected this argument. Under ORS 107.135(15), a trial court can enforce an agreement set forth in a signed “stipulated order or judgment” or an order “resulting from a settlement on the record,” or an order “incorporating a settlement agreement.”
In this case, the mother made this stipulation in her responsive declaration, and she indicated it orally on the record at the modification hearing. Neither is an “order or judgment” within the meaning of ORS 107.135.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment