Juttelstad v. Juttelstad

Decision Date17 September 1998
Docket NumberNo. 20375,20375
Citation1998 SD 121,587 N.W.2d 447
PartiesMark D. JUTTELSTAD, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Laura A. JUTTELSTAD, now known as Laura A. Wieseler, Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Tamara D. Lee, Yankton, for petitioner and appellant.

Craig A. Kennedy, Doyle and Kennedy, Yankton, for appellee.

MILLER, Chief Justice.

¶1 Mark Juttelstad appeals the trial court's decision overruling his objections to the referee's recommendation and proposed order for child support modification. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

FACTS

¶2 Laura Juttelstad 1 and Mark Juttelstad were married on September 5, 1987. They have two children, Cody, born June 9, 1989, and Lacey, born September 17, 1991. Laura and Mark were divorced on December 27, 1995. The divorce decree required Mark to pay $510.00 per month in child support, plus $90.00 per month for health insurance coverage for Cody and Lacey.

¶3 On February 22, 1996, Mark petitioned for child support modification. At the modification hearing, the referee determined Mark's child support obligation to be $435.29 per month, making him responsible for sixty-two percent of the total support obligation. In addition, Mark was required to pay $241.80 per month for child care expenses. This order became effective April 1, 1996.

¶4 On August 25, 1997, Mark again filed a petition for child support modification. After filing this petition, Mark received Laura's 1996 federal income tax return. Upon reviewing this return, Mark realized Laura had claimed child care expenses of $2,520.00 for the 1996 tax year. In the nine months of 1996 that Mark was required to pay child care expenses, he paid Laura $2,176.20. This meant that, although Mark was responsible for only sixty-two percent of the support obligation, in those nine months, he had actually paid more than one hundred percent of the costs. Mark was paying Laura $241.80 per month for child care expenses, when Laura's actual costs were, on average, $210.00 per month. At the modification hearing, Mark requested reimbursement or a credit for overpayment of child care expenses. The referee denied both the reimbursement request and the credit for overpayment. The referee determined Mark's child support payments should be modified to $382.46 per month, finding him to be responsible for fifty-six percent of the total support obligation. The referee also recommended that Mark pay Laura $50.00 per month for child care expenses. Both parties filed objections to the referee's report and recommendations and appealed to the circuit court.

¶5 On December 12, 1997, the circuit court heard the parties' objections. Because the referee erred in its calculation, the court modified Mark's monthly child support obligation to $391.00 per month, instead of the $382.46 previously ordered. The circuit court overruled Mark's objections to the referee's report.

¶6 Mark appeals raising two issues:

1. Whether child support payments are to be modified when the primary custodial parent qualifies for and takes the child care credit on her federal tax return.

2. Whether Mark is entitled to receive credit or reimbursement for overpayment of child care costs.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 This appeal involves questions of law. "We review questions of law de novo." Hamerly v. City of Lennox, 1998 SD 43, p 10, 578 N.W.2d 566, 568 (citing Peters v. Spearfish ETJ Planning Comm'n, 1997 SD 105, p 5, 567 N.W.2d 880, 883). Under a de novo review, no deference is given to the trial court's conclusions of law. Sabhari v. Sapari, 1998 SD 35, p 12, 576 N.W.2d 886, 891 (citation omitted).

DECISION

¶8 1. Whether child support payments are to be modified when the primary custodial parent qualifies for and takes the child care credit on her federal tax return.

¶9 Mark argues that, because Laura qualifies for and takes the federal child care tax credit, SDCL 25-7-6.18 requires him to be responsible for only twenty-five percent of the total child care expenses. He claims the word "it," in the last line of the statute, refers to child care expenses, not the federal child care tax credit. We disagree.

¶10 SDCL 25-7-6.18 provides:

The court may enter an order allocating the reasonable child care expenses for the child, which are due to employment of either parent, job search of either parent, or the training or education of either parent necessary to obtain a job or enhance earning potential. The court may consider whether the federal child care tax credit for such minor child is available as a benefit to the custodial parent. If the federal child care tax credit is available to the custodial parent, it shall be calculated at twenty-five percent of the eligible expense. (Emphasis added).

¶11 When interpreting a statute, " '[w]ords and phrases must be given their ordinary meaning.' " Dahn v. Trownsell, 1998 SD 36, p 14, 576 N.W.2d 535, 539 (quoting Moss v. Guttormson, 1996 SD 76, p 10, 551 N.W.2d 14, 17). " 'This Court assumes that statutes mean what they say and that legislators have said what they meant.' " Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Lyon, 1997 SD 50, p 9, 562 N.W.2d 888, 891 (quoting In re Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882, 885 (S.D.1984)). If a term is not defined, "it should be construed according to its accepted usage and a strained, unpractical, or absurd result should be avoided." Nelson v. South Dakota State Bd. of Dentistry, 464 N.W.2d 621, 624 (S.D.1991) (citing Iowa Fed. of Labor v. Iowa Dept. of Job Serv., 427 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa 1988)).

¶12 SDCL 25-7-6.18 does not define "it." Mark claims that because the statute does not provide a definition, the only term "it" could reference, without giving a "strained, unpractical or absurd result," would be child care expenses. This argument lacks merit. Mark's reading of the statute is clearly illogical.

¶13 The language of SDCL 25-7-6.18 is clear and certain. " 'When the language of the statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no occasion for construction, and the court's only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed in the statute.' " Mid-Century, 1997 SD 50, p 9, 562 N.W.2d at 891 (quoting In re Famous Brands, 347 N.W.2d at 885). The sentence on which Mark relies addresses only the federal child care tax credit. Therefore, "it" does not need to be defined. It can reference only one thing: the federal child care tax credit. The statute clearly states that the tax credit must be calculated at twenty-five percent of the total eligible child care expense. It can mean nothing else. Any other reading of the statute would result in the "strained, unpractical, absurd result" Mark warns against.

¶14 An Arizona statute, addressing this issue, illustrates the way the calculation is performed. 2 See ArizRevStatAnn § 25-320 app (West 1997). As an illustration, the Arizona statute uses as an example monthly child care expenses of $175.00. The monthly amount is multiplied by twelve to determine the total annual child care expense ($175 X 12 = $2,100). It is from the annual child care expense that the federal child care tax credit is taken. The annual amount (in this example $2,100) is multiplied by .0625, which establishes the monthly child care expense that may be added to the basic child support obligation ($2,100 X .0625 = $131.25). 3 Calculating the tax credit at twenty-five percent results in the amount of child care costs that may be allocated between the parties. It does not reduce the obligation of the parent not receiving the credit to twenty-five percent of the total child care costs.

¶15 2. Whether Mark is entitled to receive credit or reimbursement for overpayment of child care costs.

¶16 Mark claims the trial court erred when it failed to order a credit or reimbursement for his overpayment of child care costs. We agree.

¶17 It is settled law that past-due child support payments cannot be modified, except for those that accrue during the time of a pending modification petition. SDCL 25-7-7.3; see Houser v. Houser, 535 N.W.2d 882 (S.D.1995). A past-due payment or installment becomes a judgment by law and cannot be retroactively modified. SDCL 25-7-7.4; Agee v. Agee, 1996 SD 85, p 20, 551 N.W.2d 804, 806 (citations omitted). However, this prohibition on retroactive modification of past-due child support payments does not apply here. Mark has no past-due payments. He is current on all support obligations. He is not asking for a retroactive modification. He is requesting a correction for overpayment of child care expenses. Child care expenses are not a part of the basic child support obligation, but only a factor for deviation from the schedule. Therefore, SDCL 25-7-7.3 does not apply.

¶18 It is clear Mark paid Laura more per month for child care expense than Laura actually spent on child care costs. In 1996, Mark paid eighty-six percent of the total child care costs, having only made nine payments. For the nine months Mark made child care expense payments, he provided for over one-hundred percent of the monthly expense. He continued to make these monthly payments through August of 1997. Mark claims this overpayment unjustly enriched Laura. We agree.

¶19 Unjust enrichment occurs " 'when a party confers a benefit upon another party who accepts or acquiesces in that benefit and it is inequitable to receive that benefit without paying[.]' " Sporleder v. Van Liere, 1997 SD 110, p 16, 569 N.W.2d 8, 12 (quoting Randall Stanley Architects, Inc. v. All Saints Community Corp., 1996 SD 138, p 20, 555 N.W.2d 802, 805 (citation omitted)). This Court has stated "[o]ne party may not be enriched at the expense of another." Randall Stanley, 1996 SD 138, p 20, 555 N.W.2d at 805; see also Himrich v. Carpenter, 1997 SD 116, p 21, 569 N.W.2d 568, 573 (stating the doctrine of unjust enrichment protects against one party's enrichment at another party's expense). For Mark to establish Laura was unjustly enriched at his expense, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • United States ex rel. Dr. John John A. Millin v. Krause
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • 14 Abril 2018
    ...887 N.W.2d 72 (S.D. 2016); Dowling Family P'ship, 865 N.W.2d 854 (S.D. 2015); Hofeldt, 658 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 2003); Juttelstad v. Juttlestad, 587 N.W.2d 447 (S.D. 1998); Talley v. Talley, 566 N.W.2d 846 (S.D. 1997); and Hofer v. Bon Homme Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 109 N.W.2d 258 (S.D. 1961).......
  • Planned Parent. Mn, N. Dakota, S. Dakota v. Rounds
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 27 Junio 2008
    ...be construed "according to [their] accepted usage and a strained, unpractical, or absurd result should be avoided." Juttelstad v. Juttelstad, 587 N.W.2d 447, 450 (S.D.1998). A nonviable fetus is not "whole" in that it cannot maintain a separate life outside the woman's womb, and it neither ......
  • In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 23 Febrero 2015
    ...Dakota Insurors, Inc., 605 N.W.2d 181, 192 (S.D.2000)); accord Miller v. Jacobsen, 714 N.W.2d 69, 81 (S.D.2006); Juttelstad v. Juttelstad, 587 N.W.2d 447, 451 (S.D.1998); see Sporleder v. Van Liere, 569 N.W.2d 8, 12 (S.D.1997); Randall Stanley Architects, Inc. v. All Saints Community Corp.,......
  • John Morrell & Co., v. Halbur
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 5 Marzo 2007
    ...Dakota Insurors, Inc., 605 N.W.2d 181, 192 (S.D.2000)); accord Miller v. Jacobsen, 714 N.W.2d 69, 81 (S.D. 2006); Juttelstad v. Juttelstad 587 N.W.2d 447, 451 (S.D.1998); see Sporleder v. Van Liere, 569 N.W.2d 8, 12 (S.D.1997); Randall Stanley Architects, Inc. v. All Saints Community Corp.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT