Petit v. Ratner
Opinion
[422]*422OPINION
Appellant Kathie Petit here attacks the district court’s decision that NRS 126.280 bars her motion for an increase in child support.1 Petit originally sued respondent Ratner upon a paternity complaint in September, 1974. The case ended in a judgment pursuant to a “Stipulation” signed only by Petit’s counsel.
That stipulation, which recognized Ratner as the father, provided for child support of $50 per month, and for medical expenses of $596.70. Ratner contends such stipulation was an agreement pursuant to NRS 126.280. Thus, he urges, the court correctly determined that he had “bought his peace” through a court approved agreement, and accordingly no modification of child support could be had. We disagree.
Neither the stipulation, nor the court’s initial action approving it, reflects any intent to achieve a final compromise of all rights, including rights to a modification if one should become warranted through changed circumstances. Nor does it appear that the stipulation was, as NRS 126.280 requires, “fully secured by payment or otherwise.” See Cady v. Beech, 318 N.Y.S.2d 867 (Family Ct. 1971). Thus, it appears to us that the “stipulation” neither satisfied our statute, nor contained the elements of compromise agreements recognized elsewhere.2
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
551 P.2d 426 (Petit v. Ratner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.