Marriage of Taylor, In re

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BEACH; ROTH, P. J., and COMPTON
• Citation: 122 Cal.App.3d 209,175 Cal.Rptr. 716
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Nancy Y. TAYLOR, Petitioner, Respondent and Cross- Appellant, v. Joel E. TAYLOR, Respondent, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. Civ. 61286.
• Decision Date: 29 July 1981

Page 716

175 Cal.Rptr. 716 122 Cal.App.3d 209 In re the Marriage of Nancy Y. TAYLOR, Petitioner, Respondent and Cross- Appellant,
v.
Joel E. TAYLOR, Respondent, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. Civ. 61286. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California. July 29, 1981.
Hearing Denied September 23, 1981

[122 Cal.App.3d 211]

Page 717

Julian B. Fensten, Los Angeles, and Bruce Gelber, Beverly Hills, for respondent, appellant and cross-respondent.

Turner, Gerstenfeld, Wilk & Tigerman, and Stanley M. Clark, Beverly Hills, for petitioner, respondent and cross-appellant.

BEACH, Associate Justice.

NATURE OF CASE :

Husband appeals from judgment adjudicating amount of arrearage of child support upon foreign judgment. We affirm.

Page 718

ISSUE :

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the termination date for support payments as to each of the four minor children is age 18 under California law or age 21 under Missouri law.

FACTS :

Wife (respondent) obtained a divorce in Missouri in 1972. The Missouri judgment ordered husband to pay "$112.50 per month as and for the support of [122 Cal.App.3d 212] each of said minor children, making a total of $450.00 per month for child support." Husband is now a California resident and wife is a resident of Virginia.

In April 1979, wife "registered" the Missouri judgment in California as permitted under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1698.3, a part of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968 (Code of Civ.Proc. §§ 1650-1699) as amended (hereinafter, the act). Husband filed his "obligee's objections" to the statement of registration filed by wife. Thereafter, wife noticed a motion to compute arrearage of the child support and request for attorney's fees. Husband filed his response. He claimed that he was not obligated to pay for any child over the age of 18 years and that any such payment made by him should be credited against any remaining obligation of child support. Husband also claimed credit for certain loans.

After husband's response was filed, a hearing was held and thereafter the court confirmed the Missouri judgment as a California judgment and ordered husband to pay the arrearage of $5,625 and to continue to pay support for the children who remained minors. The amount determined due included payment of support for two of the minors who had reached age 18 but were under 21. It denied wife's request for attorney's fees. On appeal the mathematical computation of the amount of arrearage is not contested by husband. Only the issue of age of majority is presented. Husband's obligation would be accordingly reduced if the age of majority were found to be 18 years.

HUSBAND'S CONTENTIONS :

Husband contends that because for nearly all of the time since the Missouri divorce, he has been and now is a California resident, his duty of support is governed by the California law and the duty to support his minor children ends when any such child reaches 18 years of age.

DISCUSSION :

I

Basically we are dealing with a judgment of a sister state. That judgment must be given full faith and credit by California. (U.S.Const., art. IV, § 1.)

[122 Cal.App.3d 213] The matter at bench involves the same factual and legal issues presented to the court in Biewend v. Biewend (1941) 17 Cal.2d 108, 109 P.2d 701. There the divorced wife sought to enforce in California a Missouri judgment which awarded her alimony and child support payments. That part of the support order constituting her alimony would have been terminated under California law because of her subsequent remarriage, if the support order had been a California judgment. In expressly upholding the trial court's order enforcing the entire judgment, including wife's support, the Supreme Court in Biewend said: "An order for the payment of (support) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in one state must be recognized by all other states under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (Art. IV § 1) as to all accrued installments not subject to modification by the court rendering the original order.... (Citations.) (P) "Only if such accrued payments are still subject to modification may recovery be denied. " (Id. at pp. 110-111, 109 P.2d 701; see also Elkind v. Byck (1968) 68 Cal.2d 453, 67 Cal.Rptr. 404, 439 P.2d 316.)

At bench, analyzing Missouri law with respect to the Missouri judgment, the law of that state provides that: "(T)he provisions of any decree respecting support may be modified only as to installments accruing subsequent to the motion for modification and only upon...