Modification of Child Support Agreement in Arizona
Posted on : January 12, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Modification of Child Support Agreement in Arizona
A custodial parent can waive her claim to overdue child support. However, the waiver must be proved by clear and compelling evidence. In Ray v. Mangum, 788 P.2d 62 (1989) the Arizona Supreme Court discussed the type of evidence that supports a finding of waiver.
Facts and Procedure
Mrs. Ray divorced Mr. Mangum in 1977. She got custody of the children. The court ordered Mr. Mangum to pay $200 per month in child support. It was to be paid through the clerk of court.
Mrs. Ray remarried and moved to Texas. In December 1978, Mr. Mangum initiated proceedings in Texas to enforce his visitation rights. The following year, the court entered an order granting Mr. Mangum visitation. It again ordered him to pay $200.00 per month in child support as well as provide medical insurance for the children. These child support payments were again ordered to be made through the clerk of the court.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
In 1987, Mr. Mangum filed a motion in Texas to modify the 1979 order for child support. After the Texas motion was filed, Mrs. Ray and Mr. Mangum, entered into a written agreement about child support. They filed it in Texas, and Mr. Mangum’s motion to modify was dismissed without prejudice.
Mr. Mangum had prepared the agreement. It included the following language:
That the father, Mr. Mangum, will pay a total sum of $450.00 per month as child support. This will begin in April of 1987. The child support will be paid $225.00 per child. Payments will be made until each child reaches eighteen years of age. It is further agreed that the check will be made payable to R. Heath and K. T. Mangum. The children’s mother has stated that the check will then be put into a checking account for the children, which checking account will be under the supervision of Mrs. Ray. As Mr. Mangum is an independent consultant, support will be sent as he receives monthly funds.
Changing Your Child Support Agreement in Arizona.
The agreement did not reference past due child support. Mr. Mangum complied with the terms of the agreement.
In 1988, Mrs. Ray filed for back child support in Arizona. She asked for $21,950.00 in child support arrearages. Mr. Mangum argued that he reasonably believed that the past due support issues were resolved when the agreement was signed. Therefore, he said, he destroyed the records of what he had paid. The trial court held that Mrs. Ray waived her claims to arrearages by signing the settlement agreement.
Mrs. Ray appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. She petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
Waiver of Back Child Support
Child support can be changed going forward but not going backward. Neither a divorce court nor the divorcing couple can retroactively modify child support.
A custodial parent can, however, waive the collection of back child support. To establish a waiver, the facts must demonstrate by “clear and compelling evidence” the voluntary and intentional abandonment of a known right.
The Arizona Supreme Court found the facts, in this case, did not support a finding of waiver. Mr. Mangum produced no evidence whatsoever that his former wife intended to abandon her claim to child support arrearages. In fact, the evidence showed that she did not intend to do so.
Mr. Mangum testified that he did not discuss arrearages at the meeting. He just said that he believed the agreement included all issues. Mrs. Ray testified that Mr. Mangum told her at the meeting that he was going to pay the back child support. K. T. Mangum, their daughter, was also at the meeting and she corroborated this.
The trial court found that Mr. Mangum’s “reasonable belief” controlled the question, and the court of appeals agreed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. It said that the fact Mr. Mangum destroyed records is not clear and compelling evidence of a waiver by Mrs. Ray. Where conflicting testimony exists, one party’s belief cannot provide clear and convincing proof of an agreement.
In the instant case, the agreement was silent on back child support. Nothing indicated that Mrs. Ray waived them. An agreement to increase child support in the future was not inconsistent with a claim for overdue child support.
Modification of Child Support Agreement in Arizona.
Mr. Mangum argued below that he believed Mrs. Ray waived the collection of arrearages in the agreement. Therefore, he destroyed his records of past child support payments. Mrs. Ray, he claimed, is estopped from denying the deal.
The elements necessary to support an equitable estoppel are:
1) conduct by which one induces another to believe in certain material facts; and
2) the inducement results in acts in justifiable reliance thereon; and
3) the resulting actions cause injury.
The Arizona Supreme Court did not agree that these facts supported estoppel. It found that an agreement to increase child support would not make someone reasonably believe that back support was forgiven. The Court ruled that it was not reasonable to rely on something that was never discussed or reduced to writing. The fact that Mr. Mangum destroyed his records does not in itself prove justifiable reliance.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a determination of back child support.
As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News