In Re the Marriage of Hunt
242 P.3d 682, 238 Or. App. 195, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1280 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An informal, oral agreement to modify a court-ordered child support obligation is unenforceable, and courts may only modify support retroactive to the date a formal motion is served. However, a court has statutory discretion to grant a credit against support arrearages for periods when the paying parent had physical custody of the child with the other parent's knowledge and consent.
Facts:
- In April 2000, a dissolution judgment ordered the father to pay $392 per month in unsegregated child support for the parties' two minor children.
- In July 2002, the parties' son died at the age of nine.
- Following their son's death, the parents orally agreed to reduce the father's child support obligation to $200 per month for their surviving daughter.
- This oral agreement was never formalized or entered as a modified court judgment.
- The daughter turned 18 in January 2006.
- For at least four months in late 2006, the daughter lived with the father, and the mother knew of and consented to this arrangement.
- The father made payments of at least $200 per month from November 2002 until May 2009, when he stopped making payments altogether.
Procedural Posture:
- A proceeding was initiated in the trial court to establish the father's child support arrearage.
- The father objected, arguing the arrearage should be reduced based on an oral agreement and credit should be given for time the child lived with him.
- The trial court entered a judgment establishing the full arrearage, denying the father's requested reductions.
- The father appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the authority to reduce a child support arrearage based on the parents' unformalized oral agreement, and does it have the discretion to grant a credit against that arrearage for a period when the child lived with the paying parent with the other parent's consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Brewer, C. J.
No, a court lacks the authority to reduce an arrearage based on an informal oral agreement, but Yes, it does have discretion to grant a credit for the period the child lived with the paying parent. Under ORS 107.135(7), a child support judgment is final as to any installment that has already accrued, and a court cannot retroactively modify it. Because the father never filed a motion to modify the support order, the original $392 monthly obligation continued to accrue, and the court cannot enforce the parties' subsequent oral agreement. However, ORS 107.135(7)(a) explicitly grants a court discretion to allow a credit against arrearages for periods when the obligor parent has physical custody of the child with the obligee parent's knowledge and consent. The trial court failed to exercise this discretion without providing a reasoned explanation, which constitutes an error. Therefore, the father should have been given a credit for the four months the daughter lived with him.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict statutory requirement for formal, court-ordered modifications of child support, warning parents that private agreements are legally unenforceable. It highlights the critical difference between an impermissible retroactive modification of the underlying support obligation and a permissible discretionary credit against the final arrearage amount. The ruling clarifies that while courts lack power to change past obligations based on informal deals, they possess a specific, statutory equitable power to adjust the total debt for periods when the paying parent assumed physical custody. This distinction is crucial for future cases involving informal changes in custody or support arrangements.
