State Department of Human Services ex rel. Minyard v. Minyard

1994 OK CIV APP 174, 889 P.2d 908, 66 O.B.A.J. 504, 1994 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 167, 1994 WL 757522
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 20, 1994
DocketNo. 83040
StatusPublished

This text of 1994 OK CIV APP 174 (State Department of Human Services ex rel. Minyard v. Minyard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Department of Human Services ex rel. Minyard v. Minyard, 1994 OK CIV APP 174, 889 P.2d 908, 66 O.B.A.J. 504, 1994 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 167, 1994 WL 757522 (Okla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARL B. JONES, Judge:

This proceeding was brought by the State of Oklahoma on behalf of the Appellant, Carolyn Kay Minyard under the provisions of 12 O.S. 1171.31 to obtain an income assignment [909]*909for the Appellant’s benefit to collect on an alimony judgment rendered in a divorce action. The Petition reads in part as follows:

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, The Department of Human Services, and informs the Defendant:
a. That you were ordered on the 3rd day of March, 1993, to pay child support in the amount of $N/A per month child support and $8,000.00 for Alimony, which is equal to $500.00 per month for the period of sixteen (16) months and you are delinquent in the amount of $8,000.00, as of the 28th day of September 1993.

The trial court held a hearing on the Defendant’s objection to the income assignment and found there were no minor children of the parties and the plaintiff was not receiving aid for dependent children. The court sustained the defendant’s objection to the income assignment and stated in its order:

The court finds that Title 56 O.S. Section 240 B and C does not allow the State of Oklahoma to represent the plaintiff in an income assignment for the collection of alimony when the plaintiff is not drawing-aid for dependent children.

Appellant, State of Oklahoma, Department of Human Services ex. rel. Minyard, appeals this ruling of the trial court arguing in their brief two points: First, 56 O.S. § 240.1(B) authorized the Department of Human Services to collect spousal support through income assignment, and second that public policy dictates the department of Human Services should be authorized to collect spousal support judgments through income assignment. This Court finds both of Appellant’s arguments to be ill-founded, and affirms the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant quotes 56 O.S. 240.1 with the deletion of matter pertinent to this appeal indicated by ellipsis as follows: B. “The Department is authorized to ... effectuate an income assignment for spousal support or the support of a minor child or both for an applicant or any person who is the recipient of aid to families with dependent children.” This quotation omits the phrase “initiate proceedings and receive payments pursuant to Section 24 of this act to”. Section 24 of the act is the next section, § 240.2, and it refers only to persons entitled to receive child support payments, stating that person may request an income assignment by submitting an affidavit specifying, first, that the obligor has failed to make child support payments [910]*910required by a child support order in an amount equal to the child support payable for one month.

Secondly, Appellant argues that § 240.12 allows the department to effectuate an income assignment for spousal support for either an applicant or any person who is the recipient of aid to families with dependent children. She then states she is qualified because she is an applicant. Interpreted thusly, the word applicant is indicative of anyone who applies, as Appellant obviously has. However, the statute may not fairly be so broadly painted in view of its express provisions. This statute is entitled “initiation of proceedings to effectuate income assignment”. The first subsection (A.) states: “The Department, upon application, by a person entitled to receive child support who is not receiving aid to families with dependent children, may initiate proceedings to effectuate an income assignment and receive payments pursuant to section 24 of this act.” The Legislature could provide no more clearly than the application may be made by a person entitled to receive child support. No provision whatsoever is made for a person under these two statutes who is not receiving child support. Subsection B. limits action by the department to proceedings “... to initiate enforcement proceedings and receive payments pursuant to Section 240.2 of this title to effectuate an income assignment for spousal support or the support of a minor child or both ... ”, Section 240.2 of title 56 is specifically limited to situations where enforcement proceedings can be instituted under the provisions of the proceeding section, which, as demonstrated, requires a child support order as a prerequisite to initiation of proceedings.3

Appellant’s second and last argument is that public policy dictates that the Department of Human Services be authorized to collect through income assignment outstanding spousal support judgements. First, it must be said that any public policy which supplants the private sector in collecting personal judgments not tied into the welfare of children is not apparent to this Court. Ap[911]*911pellant refers to 56 O.S. § 240.5, stating in part that those persons not receiving aid to families with dependent children shall be given equal access to the services provided by the Department of Human Services. This Court sees no apparent reason this provision should dictate that this provision should expand the duties of the Department to providing services for persons not receiving child support payments who wish to collect spousal support. The argument has no apparent merit to this Court.

The trial court was eminently correct in denying the request of the Assistant District Attorney to collect a spousal support award where there is absolutely no statutory authority to do so. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court must be and is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HANSEN, P.J., and JOPLIN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 118
43 U.S.C. § 118

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1994 OK CIV APP 174, 889 P.2d 908, 66 O.B.A.J. 504, 1994 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 167, 1994 WL 757522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-human-services-ex-rel-minyard-v-minyard-oklacivapp-1994.