Gulley Ex Rel. Utah State Department of Social Services v. Gulley

570 P.2d 127, 1977 Utah LEXIS 1263

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Decided: September 30, 1977
• Docket: 14789
• Status: Published

Opinions

CROCKETT, Justice:

The State Department of Social Services appeals from the dismissal of its petition for reimbursement for support furnished to the children and former wife of defendant Guy M. Gulley.

Plaintiff Leora M. Gulley and the defendant were divorced in August, 1967, the decree awarded custody of four children to the plaintiff, together with $50 per month support for each child and $50 per month as alimony. Defendant made regular support payments until September 1970. At that time he entered into a contract with his ex-wife Leora M. Gulley whereby he agreed to pay her $10,000, which was to be prepayment of all of his obligations under the decree, in return for her release of those obligations.

A little over two years later, in November, 1972, Leora appears to have become financially distressed. She then applied to the plaintiff Department of Social Services and she was approved for and has received public assistance for the support of herself and the four children since that time, in June, 1976, the State of Utah initiated this action under the provisions of Section 78-45-9, U.C.A., 1953,¹ seeking reimbursement from the defendant for assistance it had provided to the extent defendant had been ordered to pay such support under the decree. As a defense, the defendant pleaded performance of the above-mentioned agreement as a release of his obligations.

There are two separate propositions to be dealt with: A, any right plaintiff may have for reimbursement for necessities furnished to the ex-wife Leora M. Gulley; and B, plaintiff’s right to reimbursement for necessities furnished to the children.

As to A; at the time of the above-stated agreement Leora was no longer the wife of defendant Guy M. Gulley; and he had no legal duty to support her, except to pay the alimony awarded in the decree. She and her husband were at liberty to bargain with respect to his obligations to her; and their agreement made with respect thereto became binding the same as any other contract.

In regard to B: the support of the children is an entirely different proposition. Every parent has the duty to support the children he has brought into the world.² This duty is inalienable and he cannot rid himself of it by purporting to transfer it to someone else, by contract or otherwise.³ Moreover, the minor children who are the beneficiaries of this duty were not parties to the agreement and they could not be bound thereby. Whether by the statute hereinabove referred to, or by the common law, the just and logical consequence of the duty of parents to support their children is that if they are left in need and a third party provides them necessities, he is subro-gated to the child’s right and may obtain reimbursement therefor.⁴ Insofar as the order of dismissal purports to prevent the plaintiff from recovering for necessities furnished to the children, the order is in error. Accordingly it is necessary that that order be vacated and this case remanded for the district court to determine the amount which was reasonably and necessarily furnished for the support of the children, up to the amount of $50 per month for each child, as provided in the decree,⁵ during their minority;⁶ and to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff accordingly. No costs awarded.

ELLETT, C. J., and HALL, J., concur.

1 . That section does not restrict or diminish the right to reimbursement. It is permissive in providing that the State Department of Social Services may proceed on behalf of the obligee [plaintiff wife, or the children] or on its own behalf to enforce that right of support against obligor [defendant husband].

2 . See Hulse v. Hulse, 111 Utah 193, 176 P.2d 875; also See Sec. 30-2-9, U.C.A.1953, which makes both husband and wife responsible for the expenses of the family and Sec. 78^45-3 which provides that: Every man shall support his wife and his child.

3 . See Price v. Price, 4 Utah 2d 153, 289 P.2d 1044.

4 .Stafford v. Field, 70 Idaho 331, 218 P.2d 338; Barrett v. Barrett, 44 Ariz. 509, 39 P.2d 621.

5 . This limitation is because the Department of Social Services sues herein to enforce the decree, as distinguished from bringing an action for reimbursement. Cf. State Division of Family Services v. Clark et al., Utah (1976), 554 P.2d 1310.

6 . Due to the ages of the children some will have attained their majority at age 18.