Thornton v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 31 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. 107,334.,107,334.
• Citation: 247 P.3d 1180,2011 OK 6
• Parties: Debra Lynn THORNTON, now Watson, Appellant,v.Edward William THORNTON, Appellee.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

247 P.3d 1180
2011 OK 6

Debra Lynn THORNTON, now Watson, Appellant,
v.
Edward William THORNTON, Appellee.

No. 107,334.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 31, 2011.

[247 P.3d 1181]

ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION 2¶ 0 Decree of divorce, rendered in Texas in 1979, ordered Father to pay child support of $160.00 a month. The child became eighteen on April 24, 1993. No enforcement or execution was had on the judgment. Sixteen years after the child reached eighteen, Mother sought to register the divorce decree in Oklahoma pursuant to the Uniform Interstate family Support Act (43 O.S. § 601–100 et seq.). The first-impression issue presented herein is whether a Texas child support order that has become unenforceable in Texas may be registered and then enforced in Oklahoma.CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.Edward F. Saheb, Norman, OK, for Appellant.Richard A. Cochran, Jr., Richard A. Cochran, Jr., PC, Marietta, OK, for Appellee.COMBS, J.

¶ 1 Debra Lynn Thornton, now Watson (Mother), on March 17, 2009, filed a “Notice of Registration of Child Support Order and Income Withholding” seeking to register the parties' 1979 Texas divorce decree. Mother claimed an arrearage of $72,569.98 as of June 2008. The divorce decree Mother sought to enforce was entered on May 18, 1979, in Hunt County, Texas. The decree ordered Edward William Thornton (Father) to pay $160.00 a month for child support for the parties' son born April 24, 1975. Sixteen years after the child reached the age of eighteen, Mother sought to register the divorce decree in Oklahoma, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (43 O.S.2001 § 601–100 et seq.).

¶ 2 Father filed an objection to the registration and enforcement request. In a brief to the trial court, Father noted sixteen years had passed since their son reached the age of eighteen. Father argued that most of Mother's claim was barred by the statute of limitations or dormancy. Father asserted Mother's claim is barred under Texas law and under the doctrines of estoppel and laches. Father also argued that the divorce decree and affidavit Mother attached to her petition did not meet Oklahoma statutory requirements. The trial court overruled Father's objection to the introduction of the documents.

¶ 3 The trial court granted Father's objection to registration of the order in Oklahoma because the judgment had expired in the state that rendered it. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding that because Oklahoma has no statute of limitations on enforcement of child support orders, Oklahoma

[247 P.3d 1182]

law would control, interpreting §§ 601–602 and 601–603(A) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Court of Civil Appeals focused on the procedure that occurs after a valid judgment is filed and registered in Oklahoma.

¶ 4 The first-impression issue presented in the instant matter is whether a Texas child support order that has become unenforceable in Texas may be registered and then enforced in Oklahoma, where Father now lives, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act 43 O.S.2001 and Supp.2009, § 601–100 through 601–901. We hold that a foreign unenforceable order cannot be registered and enforced in Oklahoma.

¶ 5 The validity of a judgment must be measured by the law in force when it was rendered. After-enacted legislation cannot impair the efficacy of a valid judgment. Evans v. Evans, 1993 OK 59, ¶ 10, 852 P.2d 145. The statute of limitations in Oklahoma prior to 1996 was five years for the collection of unpaid child support under 12 O.S.1981, § 95(6). Child support proceedings are of equitable cognizance. Merritt v. Merritt, 2003 OK 68, ¶ 7, 73 P.3d 878; Hedges v. Hedges, 2002 OK 92, ¶ 10, 66 P.3d 364. When reviewing the decision of the trial court in an equity proceeding, this Court has long held that the judgment will not be...