Peterson v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 18 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 41017–2013.,41017–2013.
• Citation: 156 Idaho 85,320 P.3d 1244
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: Debra A. PETERSON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Myron G. PETERSON, Defendant, and State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Child Support Services, Intervenor–Appellant.

156 Idaho 85

320 P.3d 1244

Debra A. PETERSON, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Myron G. PETERSON, Defendant,andState of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Child Support Services, Intervenor–Appellant.

No. 41017–2013.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2014 Term.

March 18, 2014.

Michael S. Keim, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, argued for appellant.

Peter W. Guyon, Salt Lake City, Utah, argued for respondent.

EISMANN, Justice.

This is an appeal out of Canyon County from an appellate judgment of the district court reversing the order of the magistrate court which granted a motion to renew a judgment for child support. We reverse the district court's holding that the motion to renew the judgment was barred by the statute of limitations.

I.Factual Background.

On October 3, 1985, a decree of divorce was entered terminating the marriage of Debra A. Peterson and Myron G. Peterson. The decree awarded physical custody of the parties' children to Ms. Peterson and ordered Mr. Peterson to pay child support. By order entered on January 12, 1998, the decree was amended to change physical custody of one of the children to Mr. Peterson and to order Ms. Peterson to pay child support for that child until the child reached the age of nineteen years, finished high school, or was emancipated, whichever happened first. The child was emancipated in April 2002.

In 1988, Idaho Code section 5–245 was enacted to provide a statute of limitations for an action or proceeding to collect child support arrearages. Ch. 199, § 1, 1988 Idaho Sess. Laws 378, 378. The statute provided that any such action or proceeding must be commenced within five years after the child died or reached the age of majority, whichever occurred first. Id.

In 1978, the legislature had enacted Idaho Code section 10–1111, which provided for the renewal of a judgment, Ch. 115, § 1, 1978 Idaho Sess. Laws 266, 266, but in 1995 that statute was amended to exclude judgments for child support from being renewed, Ch. 264, § 3, 1995 Idaho Sess. Laws 846, 847. The effective date of that amendment was July 1, 1995. I.C. § 67–510.

The last child of Mr. and Ms. Peterson was emancipated in April 2002 when he attained the age of majority. Thus, under the existing law at that time, the judgment for child support could not be renewed and any action or proceeding to collect unpaid child support arrearages must have been commenced by April 2007.

In 2011, Idaho Code section 10–1111 was amended by Senate Bill No. 1103 to provide for the renewal of judgments for child support. The amendment added the following provision:

(2) Unless the judgment has been satisfied, and prior to the expiration of the lien created in section 10–1110, Idaho Code, or any renewal thereof, a court that has entered a judgment for child support may, upon motion, renew such judgment. The renewed judgment may be enforced in the same manner as the original judgment, and the lien established thereby shall continue for ten (10) years from the date of the renewed judgment.

Ch. 104, § 3, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 267, 268.

Thus, the 2011 amendment provided that a judgment for child support could be renewed, and it set the time limit for doing so as being the expiration of the judgment lien created by Idaho Code section 10–1110. Senate Bill No. 103 amended that statute to provide:

A lien arising from the delinquency of a payment due under a judgment for support of a child issued by an Idaho court continues until five (5) years after the death or emancipation of the last child for whom support is owed under the judgment unless the underlying judgment is renewed, is previously satisfied or the enforcement of the judgment is stayed upon an appeal as provided by law.

Ch. 104, § 2, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 267, 268.¹

On August 10, 2011, the Bureau of Child Support of the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare filed a motion to renew the judgment against Ms. Peterson for unpaid child support pursuant to the provisions of Senate Bill No. 1103. In a supporting affidavit, an employee of the Department averred that as of August 1, 2011, the sum of $7,125.01 in unpaid child support was due from Ms. Peterson.

Section 5 of the bill included a retroactivity clause which provided:

An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval, and retroactively to July 1, 1995, and shall apply to all orders currently being enforced by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Child Support Program such that any Idaho judgment for child support that would otherwise have expired since July 1, 1995, may be renewed on or before December 30, 2011.

Ch. 104, § 5, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 267, 268–69, as amended by Ch. 331, § 1, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 968, 968.

On December 12, 2011, Ms. Peterson filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. First, she contended that even if the 2011 amendments to Idaho Code sections 10–1110 and 10–1111 were retroactive to July 1, 1995, the motion to renew the judgment was untimely. Under the 2011 amendment to section 10–1110, the lien for support "due under a judgment for support of a child issued by an Idaho court continues until five (5) years after the death or emancipation of the last child for whom support is owed under the judgment expires five years after the death or emancipation of the last child for whom support is owed." Ch. 104, § 2, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 267, 268 (emphases added). The last child of Mr. and Ms. Peterson was emancipated in April 2002. Therefore, the lien provided in Idaho Code section 10–1110 as amended in 2011 expired in April 2007. Because a motion to renew a judgment for child support under the 2011 amendment to Idaho Code section 10–1111 must be filed before the expiration of the lien, the time for filing the motion to renew also expired in April 2007.

The second argument made by Ms. Peterson was that the right to assert the statute of limitations as a defense was a vested right and that any claim barred by the then-applicable statute of limitations could not be revived by subsequent legislation. Existing rights could not be taken away by subsequent legislation.

The Department countered that its right to renew the judgment was not based upon the 2011 amendments to Idaho Code section 10–1110 and 10–1111. It was based upon the last clause in section 5 of Senate Bill No. 1103, which states that "this act ... shall apply to all orders currently being enforced by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Child Support Program such that any Idaho judgment for child support that would otherwise have expired since July 1, 1995, may be renewed on or before December 30, 2011." Ch. 104, § 5, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 267, 268–69, as amended by Ch. 331, § 1, 2011 Idaho Sess. Laws 968, 968. The Department contended that this clause provided a basis for renewing the judgment that was independent of the three statutes amended by Senate Bill No. 1103.

The magistrate judge granted the Department's motion and ordered that a judgment should issue against Ms. Peterson in the sum of $7,125.01 in accordance with Idaho Code section 10–1111 as amended in 2011, and the magistrate denied Ms. Peterson's motion for summary judgment. Ms. Peterson appealed to the district court.

When Senate Bill No. 1103 was compiled in the Idaho Code, section 5 was not included as being part of the three statutes amended. Rather, it was included as an annotation to those statutes under the heading of Statutory Notes and the subheading of Effective Dates. I.C. §§ 5–245, 10–1110, 10–1111 (Supp.2013). The district court held that section 5 did not apply because that portion of the legislation was merely legislative history, which was not to be consulted unless the statutes were ambiguous, which they were not. The district court therefore reversed the order of the magistrate renewing the judgment. The Department then timely appealed to this court.

II.Standard of Review.

"In an appeal from a judgment of the district court acting in its appellate capacity over a case appealed to it from the magistrate court, we review the judgment of the district court. We exercise free review over the issues of law decided by the district court to determine whether it correctly stated and applied the applicable law." State Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Slane, 155 Idaho 274, 277, 311 P.3d 286, 289 (2013) (citations omitted).

III.Did the District Court Err in Holding that the Effective Date Clause Was of No Effect?

Article IV, section 10, of the Idaho Constitution states how bills enacted by the legislature become law. It provides that bills passed by the legislature become laws if they are signed by the governor within five days (excluding Sundays) of being presented to him; passed by a two-thirds vote of each house after a gubernatorial veto; or not returned to the legislature by the governor within five days (excluding Sundays) after being presented to him when the legislature has not prevented such return by adjourning. Art. IV, § 10, Idaho Constitution. When Senate Bill No. 1103 was passed by the legislature and then signed by the governor on April 14, 2011, it became a law. Id. The entire bill became a law regardless of how it was compiled in the Idaho Code.

Article IV, section 1, of the Idaho Constitution provides that the executive officers listed, which includes the secretary of state, "shall perform such duties as are prescribed by this Constitution and as may be prescribed by law." The secretary of state is charged with the custody of "all acts and resolutions passed by the legislature." I.C. § 67–901(1). At the close of each legislative session, the secretary of the senate and the chief clerk of the house of representatives compile and certify true and correct copies of all bills and their amendments that were printed in their respective houses, and they file the copies of such printed bills and amendments with the secretary of state. I.C....