In re Marriage of Morris

• Decision Date: 02 August 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00CA1696.,00CA1696.
• Citation: 32 P.3d 625
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Carol A. MORRIS, Petitioner, and Jerry A. Morris, Respondent-Appellant, and Concerning Carmen G. Thompson, f/k/a Carmen G. Morris, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

32 P.3d 625

In re the MARRIAGE OF Carol A. MORRIS, Petitioner, and

Jerry A. Morris, Respondent-Appellant,

and Concerning Carmen G. Thompson, f/k/a Carmen G. Morris, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 00CA1696.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. A.

August 2, 2001.

Ben W. Thompson, Boulder, CO, for Respondent-Appellant.

Richard K. Rufner, Englewood, CO, for Intervenor-Appellee.

Opinion by Judge STERNBERG.¹

In this action concerning the enforcement of a judgment for child support arrearages, Jerry A. Morris (father) appeals from the trial court's order in favor of Carmen G. Thompson (intervenor). We affirm.

Father and Carol A. Morris (mother) divorced in 1972 while residents of the State of Texas. Under the Texas decree, father was required to pay $100 per month in child support until the parties' daughter, the intervenor in this action, turned eighteen on August 15, 1989. However, by his own admission, father made no support payments after 1976. He moved to Colorado on March 23, 1981.

Mother subsequently assigned her collection rights to intervenor, who commenced this action in 1998 for enforcement under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, C.R.S. § 14-5-101, et seq., C.R.S.2000. The parties stipulated to the amount of arrearages due from March 23, 1981, through August 15, 1989, with accrued interest.

The issue before the trial court was whether intervenor could proceed under Colorado law to recover arrearages when, under Texas law, her right to reduce the arrearages to judgment had expired. The trial court determined that Colorado law controlled, and it permitted the entry of a judgment for unpaid arrearages accruing from the date father moved to Colorado.

Father now contends that the trial court erred in determining that intervenor's right to a judgment for arrearages remained viable under Colorado law despite the fact that her right to collect arrearages had expired under Texas law some four years earlier. We disagree.

Central to the issue raised here is § 604 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 9 Uniform Laws Annot. 357 (1999 master ed.), entitled "Choice of Law," which provides:

(a) The law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrearages under the order.

(b) In a proceeding for arrearages, the statute of limitation under the laws of this State or of the issuing state, whichever is longer, applies.

Section 604 has been adopted in substantially similar form by both Colorado and Texas. See § 14-5-604, C.R.S.2000; Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 159.604 (Vernon 2000).

Under Colorado law, when any court-ordered installment of child support is due and unpaid, it automatically becomes a final money judgment without further resort to the courts. Section 14-10-122(1)(c), C.R.S. 2000; In re Marriage of Nussbeck, 974 P.2d 493 (Colo.1999). Consequently, the applicable statute of limitations is the twenty-year period prescribed in § 13-52-102(2)(a), C.R.S.2000 for execution upon judgments of every kind. Hauck v. Schuck, 143 Colo. 324, 353 P.2d 79 (1960); In re Marriage of Aragon, 773 P.2d 1110 (Colo.App.1989).

Texas law similarly provides that "[a] child support payment not timely made constitutes a final judgment for the amount due and owing, including interest as provided in this chapter." Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.261 (Vernon 2000). However, the time limitation for enforcement differs significantly from that under Colorado law. It is set forth in Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 1998), which provides:

The court retains jurisdiction to confirm the total amount of child support arrearages and render judgment for past-due child support if a motion for enforcement requesting a money judgment is filed not later than the fourth anniversary after the date:

(1) the child becomes an adult; or

(2) on which the child support obligation terminates under the order or by operation of law.

Here, father maintains that subpart (a) of the choice of law provision of § 604 of the Uniform Act, supra, controls and requires the application of the limitations period set forth in Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b). However, the trial court concluded that the phrase "and the payment of arrearages under the order" in § 604(a) pertains to a prior order of the issuing court dealing with arrearage issues, and not to a new proceeding not previously addressed in a court order. In further support of that reading, the court observed that this action was in the nature of a proceeding for arrearages and that the statute of limitations in Colorado generally refers to the length of time available to enforce judgments. It also noted that the term "statute of limitations," as used in subpart (b) of the choice of law provision specifically refers to arrearage proceedings. For these reasons the trial court rejected father's assertion that this matter was governed by subsection (a) of the choice of law provision. It also reasoned that Texas' § 157.005(b) functions as a statute of limitations for judgments entered under § 157.261, and that because Colorado's statute of limitations is longer, it is the applicable provision under § 14-5-604(b).

Comment B(2) to § 604 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 9 Uniform Laws Annot. 357 (1999 master ed.), discusses the choice of law for the interpretation of a registered order and supports the trial court's analysis. It notes that the law of the issuing state governs the underlying terms of the controlling support order with one important exception: "if there are different statutes of limitation for enforcement, the longer time limit of either the registering state or the issuing state applies."

We agree with the trial court that Colorado's statute of limitations governs enforcement of the claim for child support arrearages asserted here. Inasmuch as the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act has been adopted in both Colorado and Texas, we further conclude that the choice of law provision operates reciprocally and that Texas is equally bound to recognize the law of the state with the longer statute of limitations. See Attorney General v. Litten, 999 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.App.1999)

(in...