This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute between a divorced couple regarding child support payments. The father unilaterally reduced the monthly child support payments when two of their three children reached the age of majority, without consulting the mother or obtaining a court order. The mother later sought arrears for the reduced payments, arguing that the father was obligated to pay the full amount specified in their divorce settlement agreement until the court modified it (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: The trial court denied the mother's claim for child support arrearages, finding that she had waived her right to enforce the original agreement by her silence and conduct in accepting the reduced payments. The court also concluded that she was equitably estopped from claiming the full amount (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the father was obligated to pay the full $1,000 monthly child support as specified in the divorce decree until the court expressly modified the agreement. She contended that her silence and acceptance of reduced payments did not constitute waiver or acquiescence and that the trial court's findings were unsupported by evidence and contrary to law (paras 6-7).
- Appellee (Father): Asserted that the mother waived her right to claim arrears by her conduct and silence in accepting the reduced payments. He also argued that she acquiesced to the reductions, as she did not object or seek judicial relief for over a year (paras 7, 12).
Legal Issues
- Whether the mother waived her right to claim child support arrearages by her silence and conduct in accepting reduced payments.
- Whether the mother acquiesced to the father's unilateral reduction of child support payments.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and held that the mother did not waive or acquiesce to the father's unilateral reduction of child support payments (paras 14-15).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Bivins and Pickard JJ. concurring):
Waiver: The court held that waiver requires a clear and unequivocal relinquishment of a known legal right, which was not established in this case. The mother's silence and acceptance of reduced payments, without more, were insufficient to prove waiver. There was no evidence that the father was misled or prejudiced by the mother's conduct (paras 8-11).
Acquiescence: The court found that acquiescence requires proof of an agreement, express or implied, supported by consideration. The father failed to demonstrate such an agreement or consideration. The mother's delay in seeking judicial relief did not amount to acquiescence (paras 12-13).
Policy Considerations: The court emphasized that child support orders are presumed to remain in full force until modified by the court. A noncustodial parent seeking a reduction must obtain a stipulated order or request a hearing. The father's unilateral action was improper, and the trial court erred in denying the mother's claim for arrears (paras 5, 14).
The case was remanded for entry of an amended order consistent with the court's findings, and the mother was awarded costs and attorney fees for the appeal (para 15).