Posted on : December 20, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Three Year Rule Protects Against State
In Arizona, a child support obligation usually continues until the child is emancipated. Any legal action to recover back child support must be brought within three years from the emancipation of the child. What about administrative actions were undertaken by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”)? Are these also barred by the 3-year statute? In the case of State ex rel. Dept Economic Sec. v. Hayden, 115 P.3d 116 (Ariz. 2005) the Arizona Supreme Court addressed these issues.
Facts and Procedure
Mrs. Dann, an unmarried woman, gave birth to a baby girl in 1977. Three years later, she filed a petition to establish paternity and for child support against Mr. Hayden. Mr. Hayden admitted paternity and the court ordered him to pay $150 per month in support.
Mrs. Dann and her child began receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. When that happened, Mrs. Dann assigned Mr. Hayden’s child support obligations to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”). ADES subsequently initiated administrative measures to collect arrearages.
The child reached the age of majority in 1995. In the following three years, neither Mrs. Dann nor ADES requested a formal written judgment for the outstanding support. But ADES continued trying to get the money through administrative means.
In 2002, Mr. Hayden asked the court to stop ADES from continuing its administrative collection efforts. He claimed that his obligation to pay support expired three years after the child reached majority. The superior court rejected his claim. It entered judgment in favor of ADES. The court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted Mr. Hayden’s petition for review.
Three Year Rule Safeguards Against State.
Arizona Law Regarding Child Support Arrearages
The Court first reviewed the relevant state laws. In Arizona, every time a monthly installment becomes due under a child support order, it is considered a judgment. Each is “enforceable as a final judgment by operation of law” when it comes due. The parent owed child support may seek a formal written judgment for arrearages. The request must be filed within three years of the child’s emancipation.
If a parent gets welfare assistance, she assigns ADES her right to collect child support from the other parent. In that case, ADES also has the right to obtain a formal written judgment for past due support. If a parent or ADES obtains a written judgment, the judgment remains enforceable until paid in full. However, if there is no request for a written judgment, the unpaid support arrearages expire when the three-year period passes.
The Three-Year Statute and Administrative Collection Action
Under Arizona law, ADES has a variety of administrative remedies to collect child support arrearages not available to private individuals. These include income withholding orders, property liens, and levies on rights to the property.
Does the three-year statute prohibit ADES from collecting the child support arrearages through administrative action? When interpreting a statute, the Court seeks to fulfill the intent of the legislature. To determine that intent, the Court looks first to the language of the statute. The statute in question provides:
The right of a parent entitled to receive support or the department to receive child support payments as provided in the court order vests as each installment falls due. Each vested child support installment is enforceable as a final judgment by operation of law. Unless it is reduced to a written money judgment, an unpaid child support judgment that became a judgment by operation of law expires three years after the emancipation of the last remaining unemancipated child who was included in the court order.
Mr. Hayden argues on appeal that the expiration of the judgment eliminates the debt itself. He claims that this result must follow since each installment becomes a final judgment by operation of law. The State argues that the vested right to receive payment does not become a final judgment. Rather, it claims, the right to payment “is enforceable as” a final judgment. It argues that when a judgment that arises by operation of law expires, the underlying debt doesn’t expire. The debt survives, the State argues. Therefore, ADES can collect it through administrative remedies even after the expiration of the judgment.
When Temporary Judgments Expire, the Debt Expires
The Arizona Supreme Court found Mr. Hayden’s argument more persuasive. It said that any commonsense reading of the statute supports this interpretation. The statutes provide a comprehensive scheme for collecting child support due under a court order.
By regulating the effect of the support order, the statutes also regulate the underlying obligation. Although it is not stated directly that the installments “become” judgments when they fall due, the intent is clear. The statute transforms each child support obligation into a temporary judgment when it becomes due. It logically follows that when the judgment expires, so does the obligation. And, once the obligation has expired, ADES cannot collect the debt administratively.
This interpretation is consistent with the entire statutory scheme. ADES is bound by the same time limits that apply to a parent seeking a written arrearage judgment. Once it gets a written judgment for arrearages, that judgment remains effective “until paid in full.”
The legislature specifically caused these strict time limits to apply to ADES. This suggests that lawmakers did not intend the agency retain its administrative collection remedies in perpetuity.
Three Year Rule Protects Against State.
List of Narrow Exceptions Precludes Addition of Unwritten Exceptions
The statute sets out two narrow exceptions to the three-year limitations period. Neither applies here. The fact that the statute lists two exceptions suggests that no others can be implied. ADES, in effect, argues for a third broad exception. This unwritten exception would apply in every case where ADES wants to collect arrearages with administrative remedies.
The Court refused to add this exception to the legislature’s scheme.
Statutory History Also Support’s Mr. Hayden’s Interpretation
The earlier version of the statute, before its amendment in 1999, could have been interpreted as ADES suggests. The earlier version imposed a three-year limit for a party or ADES to “file an action” to judicially collect on a child support arrearage. It stated that the child support order was otherwise “not barred from enforcement.”
However, the 1999 amendment deleted that language. It substituted the current language. It now states that “an unpaid child support judgment that became a judgment by operation of law expires” unless it is timely reduced to a money judgment.
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.
An interpretation that results in the cancellation of child support arrearages might be seen as inconsistent with Arizona’s public policy. This was the view of the court of appeals in this case. And if Mr. Hayden has, in fact, failed to pay child support, he has failed to fulfill an important responsibility to both his child and the State.
However, these factors do not preclude the legislature from imposing time limits on the life of the temporary judgments provided for by statute. Nor can these considerations justify ignoring specific statutory mandates enacted by the legislature.
The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals. It remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News
Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys, PC As Seen in the News.