Schmitz v. Engstrom, 99-632.

• Decision Date: 30 October 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-632.,99-632.
• Citation: 13 P.3d 38,302 Mont. 121,2000 MT 275
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: In re the Support Obligation of Gerald J. SCHMITZ, Petitioner and Respondent, v. Patti ENGSTROM and State of Montana, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Division, Respondents and Appellants.

13 P.3d 38

2000 MT 275

302 Mont. 121

In re the Support Obligation of Gerald J. SCHMITZ, Petitioner and Respondent, v. Patti ENGSTROM and State of Montana, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Division, Respondents and Appellants.

No. 99-632.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs May 4, 2000.

Decided October 30, 2000.

Ann Hefenieder, Special Assistant Attorney General, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Billings, Montana, For Appellants.

Albert R. Batterman, Glendive, Montana, For Respondent.

Justice WILLIAM E. HUNT, Sr. delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Patti Engstrom and the Montana Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) brought this action to enforce a Canadian child support order against Gerald Schmitz (Schmitz). Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Schmitz owed back support in the amount of $14,705 and current/future support of $322 per month. The District Court reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Canadian support order had been nullified by an order from a Hawaiian court two years earlier and Schmitz had no obligation of child support past or present. Engstrom and CSED appealed. We reverse and remand.

¶ 2 The issues presented for appeal are as follows.

1. Did the District Court err when it concluded that a Hawaiian order, which dismissed Hawaii's enforcement action against the Respondent, "without prejudice," also modified the child support order issued by a Canadian court, thus eliminating Gerald Schmitz's child support obligation?

2. Did the District Court err when it concluded that the Hawaiian order was "an adjudication on the validity of the original support order," thus retroactively modifying the child support obligation contrary to the provisions of law?

3. Did the District Court err when it concluded that CSED's action to enforce the Respondent's support obligation was unfair, because two years had elapsed between the order dismissing Hawaii's action "without prejudice," and the CSED's income withholding notice?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The two parties, Patti Engstrom and Gerald Schmitz were married in Glendive, Montana on June 30, 1984 and divorced by order of the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, on October 28, 1993. According to the separation agreement there were two children of the marriage: Lindsay, who is Patti Engstrom and Gerald Schmitz's biological child, and Ian Ford, who is Patti's child born prior to the marriage. The divorce agreement stipulated that Gerald was not to pay child support "now or in the future" for either child.

¶ 4 In 1995, Patti Engstrom requested that the divorce decree be modified to include child support, due to a change in her financial circumstances not contemplated by the parties at the time of the divorce. The opinion of the divorce court addressed several issues, including Schmitz's parental relationship to Ian, and the change in Engstrom's financial circumstances. The court determined that under Canadian law, Schmitz stands in loco parentis to Ian despite the lack of a biological connection. This status resulted in an obligation to support Ian absent a change in their relationship. The court made clear that this was not an obligation from which Schmitz was able to withdraw unilaterally. The court also determined that there was a material change of circumstances which warranted a modification of the divorce judgment. The court relies on Willick v. Willick (1984), 173 NR 321, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Willick court noted that separation agreements and divorce judgments are not absolute bars to an order of support. If there is a material change in circumstances, the original order can be varied. In addition, according to the court, Schmitz acknowledged that he understood at the time of the agreement that Engstrom could apply for child maintenance in the future, despite the agreement. As a result, the court re-assessed the needs of the children and ordered Schmitz to pay $250 per month, per child, as maintenance for the children.

¶ 5 Engstrom requested that the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) in Montana enforce the Canadian support order. Schmitz was located in Hawaii and CSED sent an interstate transmittal to Hawaii's Child Support Enforcement Division, requesting a wage withholding to enforce the order. Schmitz requested a hearing. On October 3, 1996, a hearings officer issued an "Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice" in the matter. We have no other information in the record regarding the hearing in Hawaii.

¶ 6 In June of 1998, Engstrom and the Montana CSED re-filed to enforce the order via a wage withholding action. A hearing was held and the Administrative Law Judge found that the Hawaiian order did not modify the Canadian support order. The ALJ ordered Schmitz to pay back child support in the amount of $14,705 for the period between April 1995 and August 1998 (adjusted from Canadian to U.S. funds). The ALJ also ordered him to pay the adjusted amount awarded by the Canadian court in current and future support.

¶ 7 The District Court reversed the order of the ALJ, finding that the Hawaiian order had nullified the Canadian support order and that Schmitz owed no current, future, or back support.

DISCUSSION

¶ 8 The first two issues raised by the appellants can be addressed simultaneously. In essence, they ask whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Hawaiian order dismissing the action "without prejudice" had the effect of nullifying the order of the Canadian court, completely eliminating any child support obligation owed by Schmitz. We find that the District Court did err, and we reverse.

¶ 9 The standard of review of a district court's conclusions of law is whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co. Inc. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686.

¶ 10 The Respondent argues, and the District Court concluded, that the order of the Canadian court was modified in Hawaii in the action brought in 1997. The only evidence that he offers of this modification is an "Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice" from the State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General, Office of Child Support Hearings. This one page document reveals very little about what happened at the hearing. It is not clear from the record exactly what was argued, but it is clear that nothing was decided in the hearing. The document says nothing about a change in the rights of the parties. There is simply not enough information in the record about this hearing to...