Williams v. Williams
| Decision Date | 15 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 104,925.,104,925. |
| Parties | Melodie L. WILLIAMS, Appellee, and Edward L. WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Coffey District Court; Ronald D. Innes, Judge.
Edward W. Dosh, of Parsons, and Robert Forer, of Lawrence, for appellant.
Melissa Johnson and Randy M. Barker, of Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, of Topeka, for appellee.
Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., MARQUARDT and ARNOLD–BURGER, JJ.
Edward L. Williams appeals the district court's dismissal of his motion to modify child support and the district court's denial of a credit towards his child support arrearage for social security disability insurance (SSDI) lump-sum payments paid to his children. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed his motion to modify child support for failure to file Child Support Worksheets (Worksheet) prior to the hearing, contrary to Supreme Court Rule 139 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 228). However, we find that the district court did err in failing to give credit against Williams' child support arrearage for lump-sum SSDI back benefits payments made to his children. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
In 2001, Melodie Williams filed a petition for divorce against Edward Williams. An ex parte temporary order was filed ordering Edward to pay $665 per month in child support during the pendency of the divorce action. Several months later, the district court granted the divorce and restored Melodie to her maiden name but left all other remaining issues to be resolved at a later date.
For the next 8 years, the case proceeded on a tortuous path of attorneys (five for Edward, three for the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Service [SRS], two for Melodie, and two guardian ad litems), judges (three, with two of them recusing), and continued hearings regarding custody, child support, and contempt with few decisions being made. We will examine only the facts that are pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.
Just days before Melodie filed for the divorce, Williams resigned from his job as an over-the-road truck driver due to physical disabilities related to his prior job. At some point during the divorce proceedings he applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for SSDI benefits. He also made several requests to reduce his child support obligation in consideration of his lack of income.
Williams' first motion to modify child support was filed on March 8, 2002, before the divorce was final; in support, he subsequently filed a Worksheet. The matter was set for hearing along with other issues related to custody of the parties' two children. Due to numerous continuances, over 2 years passed during which no hearing was held, despite the fact that Melodie filed a motion for a contempt citation due to Williams' failure to pay child support.
On June 30, 2004, Williams filed a second motion to modify child support. He requested both retroactive as well as a prospective reduction and noted that his application for disability was still pending. He contended that the temporary order of child support, which was still in effect, had been calculated based on his income as a truck driver from which position he had resigned before the divorce was filed. Almost 2 1/2 more years passed, and there was still no hearing. The record is riddled with various other motions, orders, and continuances, but no hearing on the child support issue was ever held.
On November 1, 2006, a hearing was held on Melodie's contempt motion. The attorney who had been representing SRS was out on maternity leave, and a substitute attorney appeared. The substitute attorney did not object when Williams' attorney raised the issue of modifying child support at the hearing. The district court found that because Williams had not had annual earnings equal to or greater than minimum wage, his child support obligation should be recalculated accordingly. He was ordered to prepare a new Worksheet, and he was required to pay a minimum of $222 per month in child support until child support was further modified.
When the journal entry of the November 1 hearing was circulated, Melodie, who was pro se at this point, filed an objection and asked for reconsideration. She alleged that the hearing was supposed to be limited to contempt and the substitute SRS attorney did not adequately review Williams' documentation regarding disability. The “original” SRS attorney filed a motion in support of Melodie's request for reconsideration contending that the hearing was only scheduled as a contempt hearing. In addition, the attorney for SRS pointed out that Williams had failed to file a Worksheet or the Domestic Relations Affidavit (DRA) required by Supreme Court Rule 139. She further contended that the medical information provided at the hearing was inadequate to support a finding of current work restrictions. The motion to reconsider was granted and the November 1, 2006, orders were set aside.
Nine more months passed before a new hearing was held on Melodie's motion for contempt for Williams' failure to pay child support. The district court found Williams in contempt for knowingly and willfully failing to pay child support. In order to purge himself of the contempt, among other things, Williams was ordered to pay $272 each month toward his child support, although the court noted that it was not modifying the prior order of $665 per month. The court specifically declined to address Williams' motion to modify child support, finding that “[t]he Court believes that if child support is modified, Respondent will not pursue his Social Security claim.” The court's order was not appealed. Williams continued to neglect filing a Worksheet.
Finally, after an additional 2 years, on June 23, 2009, Williams received a letter from the SSA that the decision to grant him SSDI benefits was fully favorable. The SSA determined that Williams was disabled since September 16, 2001. Williams was informed that he was entitled to benefits beginning in March 2003. Both of Williams' children were given a lump-sum payment from the SSA for back benefits in the amount of $17,319 each. Subsequently, the contempt action against Williams was dismissed, as his children began receiving a monthly payment from Williams' disability claim that exceeded his child support obligation. The issue then became the arrearage, which was just under $50,000.
On February 5, 2010, Williams filed a “Motion to Redetermine Temporary Child Support Ab Initio, to Determine Current Support, and to Determine Current Arrearages and/or Credits” which reasserted his 2004 motion to modify child support and he also requested a credit toward his arrearages for the lump-sum amount paid to his children for their associated SSDI benefits. On March 19, 2010, in its response to Williams' motion, SRS pointed out that Williams had still not filed a DRA and a Worksheet as required by the Kansas Child Support Guidelines.
On June 24, 2010, a hearing was held in order to discuss Williams' motion to modify child support and his request for a credit toward his arrearages. Williams had yet to file a Worksheet. SRS conceded that a DRA had been filed in 2007, but no Worksheet had been filed. However, at the hearing, after SRS moved to dismiss his motion for failure to file the necessary documents in advance of the hearing, Williams' attorney indicated he had the documents with him to submit to the court. The district court denied him the opportunity to file the documents at the hearing. After the hearing, Williams filed a DRA and Worksheets for the years 2001 to 2009.
On July 26, 2010, the district court filed its journal entry dismissing Williams' motion to modify child support for failing to file the appropriate documents according to Supreme Court Rule 139. In addition, the district court filed an order overruling Williams' request for credit toward his child support arrearages.
Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.
Williams contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his motion to modify child support for failing to abide by Supreme Court Rule 139.
Any motion that is filed with the court is an application to the court for an order, indicating that a party is requesting the court to use its discretion to either grant or deny the motion. See K.S.A. 60–207(b). Therefore, we review the dismissal of the motion to modify child support in this case under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Marriage of Atchison, 38 Kan.App.2d 1081, 1085, 176 P.3d 965 (2008) (). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of fact. State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied132 S.Ct. 1594 (2012). An action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable if no reasonable person would have taken the action of the trial court. Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1202, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009).
The interpretation of the Supreme Court Rules, on the other hand, involves issues of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. In re Marriage of Jones, 45 Kan.App.2d 854, 856, 2010 WL 5490758 (2010).
We first examine the language of Supreme Court Rule 139(f) and (g) ( 2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 229), which state as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial