Summary 2011 WY 3

Summary of Decision January 11, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Grenz v. Wyoming Dept. Family Services

Citation: 2011 WY 3

Docket Number: S-10-0089

URL: http://tinyurl.com/4h6ru39

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Sue Davidson, Aspen Ridge Law Offices, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Susan Kay Stipe, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: January 11, 2011

Facts: Appellant challenged a district court order modifying his child support payments. He contends the district court failed to provide him proper credit against his child support obligations for court-ordered abatements he had received.

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it failed to follow and enforce the mandates of W.S. 20-2-305(f) and the abatement orders entered in this case and thereby committed an abuse of discretion.

Holdings: In light of the appellant’s knowledge of the abatement orders, his failure to adjust his child support payments according to those orders, and the statement that he intended for the abatement amounts to be used for his daughters’ support, the Court concluded that the unused abatements are the equivalent of voluntary overpayments of child support obligations. The appellant is not entitled to have those amounts refunded or used to reduce his future support obligations. There are compelling policy reasons for denying credit for abatements that have accumulated over the course of an eight-year period. It is important to note that a child support obligation “inures to the benefit of the child, not the custodial parent.” Given that child support is for the exclusive benefit of the child, it would be inequitable to allow child support to be increased at one time and reduced at another, as the child would be without needed support during periods when payments are reduced or terminated. In this case, although both children received the benefit of increased payments during periods of overpayment, only the younger daughter would be impacted by the corresponding reduction in support that would result from granting credit for unused abatements. Finally, the district court did provide the appellant some credit for his overpayments. The Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant credit for unused child support abatements. Affirmed.

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.