AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Louis A. Leyba (Father) and Martha Leyba (Mother) over the issue of retroactive child support. Father filed a claim for unpaid child support dating back to 2003, at a time when the parents' youngest children had already reached the age of majority. Mother opposed the claim, arguing that Father had waited too long to file his claim and that any claim for retroactive child support should be brought by the children themselves, not by Father.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued for the entitlement to retroactive child support payments dating back to 2003, despite the children having reached the age of majority.
• Mother: Contended that the claim for retroactive child support was improperly filed by Father instead of the children, who had already attained the age of majority. She also argued that Father's delay in filing the claim should bar him from receiving any retroactive payments.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not dismissing Father's claim for retroactive child support based on the delay in filing the claim and the children's attainment of the age of majority.
• Whether the right to seek retroactive child support belongs to the children rather than Father, given that the children had reached the age of majority by the time the claim was made.
• Whether Mother is entitled to offset the amount of past due child support she owed by subtracting other types of payments made by her.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and order regarding child support.

Reasons

• KENNEDY, Judge, with CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The Court found that child support payments become final judgments at the time they are due, and each monthly installment is a separate final judgment not subject to retroactive modification. The Court also referenced the decision in Britton v. Britton, which supports the notion that actions founded upon any judgment of any court of the state may be brought within fourteen years from the date of the judgment. This legal framework led the Court to conclude that Father's claim was not barred by the passage of time since less than fourteen years had passed on all accrued support owed.
  Furthermore, the Court disagreed with Mother's contention that the right to seek retroactive child support belonged to the children, citing Brannock v. Brannock, which recognized that a parent who has provided support for a child may file a claim for past due child support. The Court was unpersuaded by Mother's arguments citing out-of-state and federal authority, as well as her claim of being denied a fair hearing, noting that a hearing was held with Mother's participation.
  Regarding the issue of offsetting past due child support with other types of payments made by Mother, the Court observed that while parents can agree to waive child support arrears, the district court found no such agreement between the parties. The Court affirmed the district court's decision not to credit Mother for voluntary payments made, such as school-related items and a $6,000 vehicle, aligning with precedent that voluntary expenditures do not offset child support obligations in the absence of an agreement to modify the support order.