. .a\ LaW Library rnton IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7il1l fEB ~6 F;~J 1-: S" 2
3 DONALD HARPER, ) CHILD SUPPORT CASE ~9rC~9~~.~-10 . ..J
) vvn:lllUd Oil 4 Plaintiff, ) O;-r G.:,-~~\:;A ". . . ; 11 5 ) RECOMMENDED VS. ) FINDINGS AND ORDER 6 ) ROSE HARPER, ) 7 ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 ----------------------------) 10
11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Court on a Motion to Contest Validity and Enforcement of 13
14 Registered Order. Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Toft appeared on behalf the Office of
15 the Attorney General Child Support Enforcement Division. Attorney Jeffery A. Cook appeared 16 on behalf of Donald Harper. Rose Harper neither appeared nor was represented by counsel. The 17 Court took the matter under advisement. After considering the oral and written arguments, the 18
19 relevant documents in the record, and the applicable law, the Court now enters its
20 Recommended Findings and Order. 21
22 BACKGROUND 23 Donald Harper ("Donald") and Rose Harper ("Rose") were divorced in Alaska in June 24
25 1987. Within a year, the parties, as well as the children no longer resided in Alaska. The last
26 child emancipated in June 1999. Donald first became aware that the Office of the Attorney 27 General ("OAG") was claiming he had not paid child support pursuant to the divorce decree 28 }{arperv. }{arper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-10 Page lof5 when he was served with the Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order in the Superior 2 Court of Guam in September 2010. 3 Donald asks the Court to vacate the registration; asserts the defense that all sums due in 4 the Alaska judgment were paid by Donald to Rose; asserts that the applicable statute of 5
6 limitations bars action on the judgment since the last support payment under the order was due
7 and paid in June 1999, over 10 years ago; and reserves other defenses he has a right to raise. 8 Conversely, the OAG asks the Court to enforce the order. The OAG alleges that Donald owes 9 $70,378.07 in child support arrears. 10 On October 13,2010, a hearing was held on Donald's request contesting the validity and 11
12 enforcement of the registered order. After arguments from Donald and the OAG were heard,
13 the Court requested that the parties brief the issues before the Court. The Court now addresses 14 Donald's contest to the validity and enforcement of the registered order. 15
17 DISCUSSION
18 The OAG argues that the laws of Alaska do not prevent the enforcement of previously 19 adjudicated arrears. Alaska Statute 09.l0.040(a) states, "a person may not bring an action upon 20 ajudgment ... unless the action is commenced within 10 years." The Supreme Court of Alaska 21 has made it clear that each time a child support payment is due and unpaid a judgment is 22
23 created. See State, CSED v. Dean, 902 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Alaska 1995). In Koss v. Koss, 981
24 P.2d 106 (Alaska 1999), the Supreme Court of Alaska "explained '[i]t is well-settled that 25 executing upon a judgment does not operate to commence an entirely new civil action.'" /d. at 26 107 (quoting Dean, 902 P.2d at 1324); see State, Dept. of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement 27 Div. ex rel. Gause v. Gause, 967 P.2d 599, 600-03 (Alaska 1998); State Dept. of Revenue, Child 28 Harper v. Harper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-10 Page 2 of5 Support Enforcement Div. ex reI. Gerke v. Gerke, 942 P.2d 423, 425 (Alaska 1997); State, Dept. 2 Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div. ex ref. Valdez v. Valdez, 941 P.2d 144, 151-52 3 (Alaska 1997) (Attempt by Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to collect child 4 support arrearages under divorce decree was neither an action on the judgment, nor an attempt 5
6 to execute, and therefore, limitations period for actions on judgments did not apply.).
7 The Supreme Court of Alaska explained that the collection powers of the CSED are 8 meant to supplement judicial powers of enforcement, and are not new actions under AS 9 09.1 0.040. Koss, 981 P.2d at 107 (The ten-year statute oflimitations did not bar Child Support 10
Enforcement Division's action to collect child support arrearages owed by former husband; 11
12 statute only applies to new proceedings commenced by new complaints, and not to existing
13 judgments.). These collection powers are "akin to a standard [judicial] execution" rather than 14 initiating a new legal proceeding. Dean, 902 P.2d at 1325. Therefore, AS 09.10.040 does not 15 prevent the enforcement of previously adjudicated arrears. 16
17 However, Donald contends that AS 09.35.020 applies to recovery of arrearages in child
18 support payments. Donald cites Young v. Williams, 583 P.2d 201 (Alaska 1978) to support his 19 position. In Young, the Supreme Court of Alaska determined the applicable statute of 20 limitations on actions to recover arrearages in child support payment is the same applicable for 21 judgments. 1 Young, 583 P.2d at 205. However, the Supreme Court of Alaska further clarified 22
23 that the Alaska statues do not impose a definitive time limitation on the execution of judgments
24 of past due unpaid child support, but rather states that if a judgment creditor seeks to execute on 25
27 1 The statute cited in Young was AS 09.10.040 - which in 1978 read as follows: No person may 28 bring an action upon a judgment or decree of a court of the United States, or of a state or llarper~ llarper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-1 0 Page 3 of5 a valid judgment after the judgment has lapsed five years, good cause must be shown for the 2 delay. Dean, 902 P.2d at 1324. Alaska Statute 09.35.020 reads as follows: 3 When a period of five years has elapsed after the entry of judgment and without 4 an execution being issued on the judgment, no execution may issue except by order of the court in which judgment is entered. The court shall grant the motion 5 if the court determines that there are just and sufficient reasons for the failure to 6 obtain the writ of execution within five years after the entry of judgment.
7 AS 09.35.020. 8 The Supreme Court of Alaska has held that, AS 09.35.020 does not apply to the 9 collection of child support arrears unless the child support enforcement agency obtains a writ of 10 execution. Valdez, 941 P.2d at 152 (Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) was not 11
12 required to show good cause for being allowed to collect arrears under child support judgment -', .. ." tt . .-' 13 that was more than five years old, where CSED was not trying to execute, but rather, was using 14 administrative enforcement methods.). Ther~is no evidence that the OAG is seeking to obtain a 15 writ of execution from this Court. 16
17 The OAG seeks to register the Alaska child support order. The Alaska legislature
18 adopted the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA") in 1954.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
. .a\ LaW Library rnton IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7il1l fEB ~6 F;~J 1-: S" 2
3 DONALD HARPER, ) CHILD SUPPORT CASE ~9rC~9~~.~-10 . ..J
) vvn:lllUd Oil 4 Plaintiff, ) O;-r G.:,-~~\:;A ". . . ; 11 5 ) RECOMMENDED VS. ) FINDINGS AND ORDER 6 ) ROSE HARPER, ) 7 ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 ----------------------------) 10
11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Court on a Motion to Contest Validity and Enforcement of 13
14 Registered Order. Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Toft appeared on behalf the Office of
15 the Attorney General Child Support Enforcement Division. Attorney Jeffery A. Cook appeared 16 on behalf of Donald Harper. Rose Harper neither appeared nor was represented by counsel. The 17 Court took the matter under advisement. After considering the oral and written arguments, the 18
19 relevant documents in the record, and the applicable law, the Court now enters its
20 Recommended Findings and Order. 21
22 BACKGROUND 23 Donald Harper ("Donald") and Rose Harper ("Rose") were divorced in Alaska in June 24
25 1987. Within a year, the parties, as well as the children no longer resided in Alaska. The last
26 child emancipated in June 1999. Donald first became aware that the Office of the Attorney 27 General ("OAG") was claiming he had not paid child support pursuant to the divorce decree 28 }{arperv. }{arper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-10 Page lof5 when he was served with the Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order in the Superior 2 Court of Guam in September 2010. 3 Donald asks the Court to vacate the registration; asserts the defense that all sums due in 4 the Alaska judgment were paid by Donald to Rose; asserts that the applicable statute of 5
6 limitations bars action on the judgment since the last support payment under the order was due
7 and paid in June 1999, over 10 years ago; and reserves other defenses he has a right to raise. 8 Conversely, the OAG asks the Court to enforce the order. The OAG alleges that Donald owes 9 $70,378.07 in child support arrears. 10 On October 13,2010, a hearing was held on Donald's request contesting the validity and 11
12 enforcement of the registered order. After arguments from Donald and the OAG were heard,
13 the Court requested that the parties brief the issues before the Court. The Court now addresses 14 Donald's contest to the validity and enforcement of the registered order. 15
17 DISCUSSION
18 The OAG argues that the laws of Alaska do not prevent the enforcement of previously 19 adjudicated arrears. Alaska Statute 09.l0.040(a) states, "a person may not bring an action upon 20 ajudgment ... unless the action is commenced within 10 years." The Supreme Court of Alaska 21 has made it clear that each time a child support payment is due and unpaid a judgment is 22
23 created. See State, CSED v. Dean, 902 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Alaska 1995). In Koss v. Koss, 981
24 P.2d 106 (Alaska 1999), the Supreme Court of Alaska "explained '[i]t is well-settled that 25 executing upon a judgment does not operate to commence an entirely new civil action.'" /d. at 26 107 (quoting Dean, 902 P.2d at 1324); see State, Dept. of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement 27 Div. ex rel. Gause v. Gause, 967 P.2d 599, 600-03 (Alaska 1998); State Dept. of Revenue, Child 28 Harper v. Harper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-10 Page 2 of5 Support Enforcement Div. ex reI. Gerke v. Gerke, 942 P.2d 423, 425 (Alaska 1997); State, Dept. 2 Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div. ex ref. Valdez v. Valdez, 941 P.2d 144, 151-52 3 (Alaska 1997) (Attempt by Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to collect child 4 support arrearages under divorce decree was neither an action on the judgment, nor an attempt 5
6 to execute, and therefore, limitations period for actions on judgments did not apply.).
7 The Supreme Court of Alaska explained that the collection powers of the CSED are 8 meant to supplement judicial powers of enforcement, and are not new actions under AS 9 09.1 0.040. Koss, 981 P.2d at 107 (The ten-year statute oflimitations did not bar Child Support 10
Enforcement Division's action to collect child support arrearages owed by former husband; 11
12 statute only applies to new proceedings commenced by new complaints, and not to existing
13 judgments.). These collection powers are "akin to a standard [judicial] execution" rather than 14 initiating a new legal proceeding. Dean, 902 P.2d at 1325. Therefore, AS 09.10.040 does not 15 prevent the enforcement of previously adjudicated arrears. 16
17 However, Donald contends that AS 09.35.020 applies to recovery of arrearages in child
18 support payments. Donald cites Young v. Williams, 583 P.2d 201 (Alaska 1978) to support his 19 position. In Young, the Supreme Court of Alaska determined the applicable statute of 20 limitations on actions to recover arrearages in child support payment is the same applicable for 21 judgments. 1 Young, 583 P.2d at 205. However, the Supreme Court of Alaska further clarified 22
23 that the Alaska statues do not impose a definitive time limitation on the execution of judgments
24 of past due unpaid child support, but rather states that if a judgment creditor seeks to execute on 25
27 1 The statute cited in Young was AS 09.10.040 - which in 1978 read as follows: No person may 28 bring an action upon a judgment or decree of a court of the United States, or of a state or llarper~ llarper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-1 0 Page 3 of5 a valid judgment after the judgment has lapsed five years, good cause must be shown for the 2 delay. Dean, 902 P.2d at 1324. Alaska Statute 09.35.020 reads as follows: 3 When a period of five years has elapsed after the entry of judgment and without 4 an execution being issued on the judgment, no execution may issue except by order of the court in which judgment is entered. The court shall grant the motion 5 if the court determines that there are just and sufficient reasons for the failure to 6 obtain the writ of execution within five years after the entry of judgment.
7 AS 09.35.020. 8 The Supreme Court of Alaska has held that, AS 09.35.020 does not apply to the 9 collection of child support arrears unless the child support enforcement agency obtains a writ of 10 execution. Valdez, 941 P.2d at 152 (Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) was not 11
12 required to show good cause for being allowed to collect arrears under child support judgment -', .. ." tt . .-' 13 that was more than five years old, where CSED was not trying to execute, but rather, was using 14 administrative enforcement methods.). Ther~is no evidence that the OAG is seeking to obtain a 15 writ of execution from this Court. 16
17 The OAG seeks to register the Alaska child support order. The Alaska legislature
18 adopted the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA") in 1954. URESA 19 was intended as a means to improve the enforcement of child support obligations when parents 20 cross state lines. Since then, Alaska, like Guam, has adopted the Uniform Interstate Family 21 Support Act ("UIFSA"), which has similar provisions. In this case, Alaska serves as an 22
23 "initiating state" by forwarding a UIFSA petition to Guam, where Donald now resides. See AS
24 25.25.203; 5 G.C.A. § 35203. Applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Alaska in the 25 various cases interpreting AS 09.10.040 and AS 09.35.020, the Court finds that there is no 26
28 territory within the United States, and no action may be brought upon a sealed instrument unless Harper v. Harper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-10 Page 4 of5 statute of limitations that bars the registration of the Alaska child support order pursuant to Title 2 5 of the Guam Code Annotated Chapter 35. 3
4 CONCLUSION 5
6 Based on the foregoing reasons, Donald Harper's Motion to Contest the Validity and
7 Enforcement of Registered Order is DENIED. 8
9 SO ORDERED this _...:..~__ day of February 2012. 10
28 commenced within 10 years. See Young, 583 P.2d at 205 fn. 12. Jlarperv. Jlarper Recommended Findings and Order (Motion to Contest the Validity and Enforcement of Registered Order) Child Support Case Nos. CS0323-1O Page 5 of5