Scungio v. Scungio

• Decision Date: 05 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 110,251.,110,251.
• Citation: Scungio v. Scungio, 291 P.3d 616 (Okla. 2012)
• Parties: Mark Anthony SCUNGIO, Appellee, v. Margaret Sue SCUNGIO, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

291 P.3d 616

Mark Anthony SCUNGIO, Appellee,

v.Margaret Sue SCUNGIO, Appellant.

No. 110,251.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 30, 2012.

As Corrected Nov. 5, 2012.

CERTIORARI REVIEW OF CERTIFIED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER FROM DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY

¶ 0 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services filed a “Motion to Determine[Child Support] Arrearage” and a “Motion to Modify[reduce] Child Support” in its administrative court on behalf of the father of children receiving child support services.The mother moved to dismiss the motion to modify based on provisions of the parties' settlement agreement which had been incorporated into their divorce decree.The administrative law judge issued an order transferring the matter to the District Court of Oklahoma County and filed it in the divorce action.Mother moved to dismiss the motion to modify in the district court.The trial court, Honorable Lynne McGuire, denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the parties' agreement failed to demonstrate an intent to be free from the statutory provisions governing modification of child support.The order was certified for immediate appeal and this Court granted certiorari review of the certified interlocutory order.

CERTIORARI TO REVIEW CERTIFIED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; ORDER REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED.

Floyd W. Taylor, Kevin S. Taylor, The Taylor Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, for Appellant.

Jay F. McCown, Tamra A. Spradlin, Michelle K. Smith, A. Seth Killman, Father's Parental Rights Law Center, Oklahoma City, for Appellee.

COLBERT, V.C.J.

¶ 1This Court granted certiorari review of a certified interlocutory order to address two issues which concern modification of child support: (1) Was a motion to modify properly before the district court for its determination?(2) Do the four corners of the divorce decree in this matter demonstrate the parties' intent to be free of the statutory provisions concerning modification of child support?This Court holds the procedural vehicle utilized to place the motion to modify child support before the district court was authorized by statute.Additionally, the parties clearly demonstrated their intent that there be no modification of child support without their mutual assent and it was error for the district court to hold to the contrary.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 In September, 2001, Mark Anthony Scungio(Father) and Margaret Sue Scungio(Mother) adopted their three foster children, siblings, two of whom were special needs children with serious psychological disabilities.In July, 2004, in contemplation of divorce, the parties entered into a written agreement titled “Contractual Agreement–Separation and Parenting Plan to be incorporated into divorce decree.”A divorce action was filed in 2007 and the document was incorporated into the divorce decree in October, 2009.Under the Agreement, Mother became the custodial parent and Father assumed support obligations.

¶ 3 The Agreement and the divorce decree recited facts that are key to understanding the parties' intent concerning child support at the time of contracting.The parties were married in California in 1988 and have resided in Oklahoma since 1991.In the 2004 Agreement, Father admitted he committed “emotional abuse to his wife and children such that irreconcilable differences have arisen between the parties in consequence of which the parties are now living separate and apart.”Concerning child support, the Agreement provided: “Husband agrees that his emotional abuse toward Wife and children exacerbated the any [sic] mental illnesses preexisting in the children and as such he has an even greater responsibility to support them.”The Agreement also acknowledged that each parent:

agrees that he or she understands that due to the psychiatric disabilities of [two of the children], their disabilities may continue into adulthood, and that either or both may require substantial care and personal supervision and may not be capable of self-support and that under [the applicable Oklahoma Statutes] it is the parent's duty to maintain such person.If such is the case, the Mother agrees to provide the continued care beyond the age of majority and the Father agrees to provide continued child support as established above.

The Agreement set a formula for the calculation and payment of child support which provided:

Husband agrees to pay Wife, as child support, an amount that when added to the support alimony ... of $615.00 per month equals one half his military base pay (gross) or an amount equal to one half his highest base pay (gross) minus $615.00 in the event he leaves the military or retires in the form of child support with increases cost of living (COLA) adjustments, raises, and grade increases.

Child support will be payable on the first of each month in the form of an allotment into Wife's checking account and will be payable upon the signing of this Contractual Agreement in the amount of $1035.00 (2004 E–7 pay at 18 years in service) per month and will continue to be paid by the first of each month until all three children reach the age of majority and becomes [sic] self-supporting or 22 if attending college.

Thus, the Agreement provided terms and a formula that provided for more than what was required by the guidelines set out in the Oklahoma Statutes in order to meet the specialneeds of two of their children.¹

¶ 4Father's child support payments were in significant arrearage at the time of divorce and have remained so.Before the divorce trial in October, 2009, Father retired from the United States Air Force and child support was calculated using the formula set out in the Agreement.A divorce was pronounced from the bench at trial.In December, 2009, the DHS filed a “Notice of Necessary Party” in the divorce action which outlined the services that the DHS was providing for the minor children and notifying the District Court that it was a necessary party concerning “child support, medical support, and any debt due the State of Oklahoma.”At the same time, the DHS filed a “Notice of Redirection of Support Payments” directing such payments to the Oklahoma Centralized Support Registry.The decree which incorporated the Agreement was signed and filed on March 30, 2010.

¶ 5 On May 12, 2010, the Office of Administrative Hearings: Child Support Department of Human Services issued a “Notice to Review and Modify Support Order.”The DHS asserted that the child support award was not in accord with the child support guidelines and that a change in Father's income required a reduction in the amount of his child support.A hearing was held before an administrative law judge on October 28, 2010, and an administrative “Court Minute” was issued which provided:

Now on this 28th day of October, 2010, Petitioner appears in person, pro se Respondent appears in person and with counsel, Floyd Taylor.State appears thru counsel, Kelli S. Price.After review of the pleadings and issues in this matter this court determines as follows: In the interest of judicial economy and in order to resolve all issues herein this matter shall be and is hereby transferred to the Oklahoma County District Court.The State shall set a MTDA & set this matter for hearing and the parties shall be notified by regular mail.All parties are ordered to appear for further hearings in this matter.

On November 10, 2010, an administrative law judge ordered the matter transferred to the District Court of Oklahoma County.

¶ 6 On December 30, 2010, The DHS filed in the divorce action a “Request to Docket Administrative Order” on behalf of “Plaintiff” in order to enforce the October 28, 2010, administrative minute order.In addition it filed a “Motion to Determine Arrearage” in the divorce action asking the court to settle “a dispute as to the arrearage owed” and set a judgment payment.The DHS did not file a motion to modifyFather's child support in the divorce action apparently taking the position that a new motion was unnecessary.

¶ 7 On July 18, 2011, Mother moved to dismiss the DHS motion to modify child supportwhich had been filed in the administrative action.She relied on this Court's decision in Parham v. Parham,2010 OK 24, 236 P.3d 74, and argued the Agreement clearly expressed an intent that child support not be subject to the statutory requirement of modification in the event of a change in Father's income.Additionally, Mother argued that the procedure by which the administrative law judge “transferred” the matter to the district court was not authorized by statute.

¶ 8The trial court denied Mother's motion to dismiss the request for modification of child support without addressing the procedural issue and holding that Mother“failed to demonstrate an intention by the parties to the Separation Agreement not to be subject to the statutory conditions for modification of child support.”The trial court set the motion to modify child support for an evidentiary hearing.Father joined Mother in urging that the order be certified for interlocutory appeal.The order was certified and this Court granted certiorari review of the procedural issue as well as the substantive issue presented in this matter.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9“The courts will decide, as a matter of law, whether a contract provision is ambiguous and interpret the contract provision as a matter of law where the ambiguity can be cleared by reference to other provisions or where the ambiguity arises from the contract language and not from extrinsic facts.”Oklahoma Oncology & Hematology, P.C. v. U.S. Oncology, Inc.,2007 OK 12, ¶ 27, 160 P.3d 936, 946(citations omitted).Issues of law are reviewed de novo.Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth.,1993 OK 85, ¶ 14, 859 P.2d 1081, 1084.Whether the transfer procedure, utilized by the administrative law judge to place the issue of child support modification before the District Court, is authorized by statute presents a question of law for this...