Time Limitations for Collecting Child Support Arrearages in Arizona
Posted on : February 9, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Time Limitations for Collecting Child Support Arrearages in Arizona
A parent must be given notice when the other parent registers child support orders from another state in Arizona. Is the other parent bound by the child support arrearages listed in that notice if she fails to object? In AZDES/Taylor v. Pandola; 1CA-CV 15-0191 FC, the Arizona Court of Appeals discussed this issue.
Facts of the Case
Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Pandola had a child in 1999. They were living in Illinois. Mr. Pandola agreed to pay $3,000 per month in support, and a court entered that order.
Mrs. Taylor moved with the child to Arizona. The Illinois court retained jurisdiction over child support. It entered several additional orders in 2003 and 2004 reducing the amount of the child support order going forward.
In 2005, Mr. Pandola asked the Arizona court to modify the last of the Illinois orders and reduce support payment to $106. The parents stipulated that Mr. Pandola would pay arrearages of $7,146 and child support of $900 per month starting April 1, 2006.
Time Limitations for Collecting Child Support Arrearages in Arizona.
In 2010, the Arizona court reduced the monthly amount to $655. The Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) became involved. In 2013, the Arizona court ruled that it had no jurisdiction until the operative Illinois order was registered in Arizona.
On August 14, 2014, Mr. Pandola registered five support orders from Illinois with the Arizona court. He also filed a “Notice of Filing Respondent’s Sworn Statement Re: Child Support Arrears.” In this, Mr. Pandola swore that he did not owe any child support arrears in the matter. He gave copied Mrs. Taylor’s attorney with the documents on September 4, 2014.
On August 27, 2014, ADES filed its own arrears calculation, showing Mr. Pandola owed $375,790.50 in back child support. This was later modified. Mrs. Taylor filed in support of ADES but did not object to Mr. Pandola’s notice until November 5. The superior court found that Mrs. Taylor was served with the notice on September 4 and had until September 24 to object. Since she didn’t, the court found she waived objection to the May 2004 Order. It also ruled that she waived her objection to the avowal that Mr. Pandola owed no arrearages. It awarded Mr. Pandola $7000 in attorney fees. Mrs. Taylor appealed.
Service of the Notice of Registration
Mrs. Taylor argues that Mr. Pandola’s filing was legally insufficient and was not properly served. She claims that he did not file all of the Illinois child support orders. She also alleges that the clerk of court should have forwarded the notice to her.
The Court of Appeals noted that Mrs. Taylor had not identified any orders other than the ones filed by Mr. Pandola. It also found that Mr. Pandola had properly served her by serving her attorney.
Timeliness of Objection to Registration
Mrs. Taylor admits that she did not object to the notice within 20 days of service, but she claims that the “Motion to Enforce Court Order” and request for relief filed before the notice constituted objections.
The Court of Appeals said that the statute required the objection be directed to the validity or enforcement of the particular documents filed. Filings that happened before the Notice could not operate as a preemptive challenge to the later-filed Notice.
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 Hildebrand Law 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.
Last, Mrs. Taylor argues that her failure to timely object to the Notice did not bar her from contesting Mr. Pandola’s avowal that he owed no child support arrears. The statute requires a party registering a foreign support order to file a sworn statement of arrearages due under that order. The superior court held that the deadline for objecting to the registration of a foreign order also applied to the amount of the arrearages stated.
The Court of Appeals held that the lower court misunderstood and misapplied the statute. Mrs. Taylor’s failure to timely object to the Notice waived her right to contest confirmation of the support order. As a result, the May 2004 Order was confirmed and the Arizona court acquired jurisdiction to enforce it. But the statute does not impose the same consequences for Mrs. Taylor’s failure to object to Mr. Pandola’s avowal about arrearages. The order is subject to confirmation under the statutes, not the filing party’s calculation of arrearages.
Time Frame for Collecting Child Support Arrearages in Arizona.
Once the foreign order is registered and confirmed, the Arizona court acquires jurisdiction to enforce the order. To do so, it first determines the arrearages due. The language of the statute does not support the opposite conclusion. It provides that “a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered support order must be requested within twenty days.” It does not refer to any duty to seek a hearing to contest the validity of the filing party’s declaration of arrears.
Mr. Pandola argues that the statute discusses “enforcement of the order and the alleged arrearages.” The Court of Appeals construed “alleged arrearages” to mean that a failure to object may result in proceedings to collect any arrearages referenced in that order. Under the statutes, the amount of the arrearages is a matter of fact to be determined by the Arizona court. This happens on a party’s motion to enforce the order. This construction is consistent with the statute, which specifically requires an objection to the “validity or enforcement of the registered support order.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the orders of the superior court. The Court also vacated the award of attorney fees for Mr. Pandola and remanded the case for further proceedings.
As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News