Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-0006 SupportWENDY HICKMAN, Plaintiff VS. MAHLON Z. ADAMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 94-0006 SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : : DR,q 22,118 MAHLON Z. ADAMS, Plaintiff VS. WENDY HICKMAN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 94-0391 SUPPORT : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : : DR//22,600 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ORDER AND NOW, this day of January, 1998, following hearing in this case, our previous orders in this matter are VACATED. The order of court in and for the County of Contra Costs, State of California is herewith registered and arrearages, according to the payment record of the case are herewith set in the amount of $20,150.93. With respect to said amount owed at 6 Support of 1994, the defendant/plaintiff, Mahlon Z. Adams, shall be entitled to a credit of any amounts which are due and which remain unpaid in the support action docketed to 391 Support of 1994, which amounts have been determined to be $3,923.35. BY THE COURT, WENDY HICKMAN, Plaintiff VS. MAHLON Z. ADAMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 94-0006 SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION DR# 22,118 MAHLON Z. ADAMS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 94-0391 SUPPORT VS. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION WENDY HICKMAN, : Defendam : DR//22,600 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 26, 1996, we filed an opinion in this longstanding support dispute. Therein, we set out the history of this case, noting that it has its origins in a support order dated September 17, 1981, in the Court of Contra Costa, California. It is this order which Wendy Hickman as plaintiff seeks to register in this county. As we previously noted, over the years and despite changed circumstances, existing support orders were not amended. We therefore attempted to reconstruct the financial histories of the parties giving credits against the Contra Costa order as we thought appropriate. An appeal of our order was quashed by the Superior Court and the matter was remanded to us and eventually to the Domestic Relations Office to calculate certain other credits. The matter has now found its way back to the trial court. The obligee of the Contra Costa County order, Wendy Hickman, takes the position that we erred in failing to give full faith and credit to the California order, in altering the time periods of Mr. Adams' obligation to pay support and 6 SUPPORT 1994 391 SUPPORT 1994 that the calculation of credits on the part of the Domestic Relations Office were in error. We are now persuaded that Ms. Hickman's position is fundamentally correct. This matter is-governed by the provisions of Chapter 76 of Title 23 of our Pennsylvania Statutes. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 7601 et seq. These provisions of the law were enacted on April 4, 1996. Though this protracted registration proceeding began before that, the case having been docketed in 1994, we are entirely satisfied that, provided the plaintiff complies with the current requirements for registration, her case should not be judged in light of an outmoded statute. The law, as it currently exists, provides for the registration of foreign orders. It requires that we give them full faith and credit but, contrary to Ms. Hickman's rather narrow understanding of that term, the order need not necessarily be accepted at face value. There is a procedure to contest the validity or enforcement of a registered order. That is precisely what Mr. Adams has sought to do. The defenses to the registration of a foreign order are set out in 23 Pa.C.S.A. 7607 which reads as follows: 7607. Contest of registration or enforcement (a) Defenses. - A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving any of the following defenses: (1) The issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party. (2) The order was obtained by fraud. (3) The order has been vacated, suspended or modified by a later order. (4) The issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal. (5) There is a defense under the law of this State 2 6 SUPPORT 1994 391 SUPPORT 1994 to the remedy sought. (6) Full or partial payment has been made. (7) The statute of limitation under section 7604 (relating to choice of law) precludes enforcement of some or all of the arrearage. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 7607(a). We are satisfied that, with the possible exception of 7607(a)(5), Mr. Adams has failed to prove the applicability of any of these provisions. By noting a "defense under the law of this state" we make reference to Ms. Hickman's claim for interest under the California order. She has, in fact, filed two different orders in this case, one with interest from the 1980s and one without. We do not believe that it is appropriate to register the California order with interest. As our opinion of April 26, 1996, notes, it is unclear as to whether or not the interest portion of the California order applies to support arrearages or to other amounts which are due in the order. Moreover, we know of no provision under Pennsylvania law for the assessment of compounding interest in support matters. Instead, we note that the law provides that the "court may impose a penalty of not more than 10% on any amount in arrears for 30 days or more if the court determines that the arrearage was willful." 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4348(c). In this case, a ten percent penalty on the amount of the arrears would not begin to approximate the more than doubling of the arrearages which occurs by compounding interest. In registering the California order, we will credit Mr. Adams with those amounts due and unpaid at the support case docketed to 94-0391. The arrearage in this case, shortly after its docketing, was adjusted to $333.60. Thereafter, Ms. Hickman made regular payments in the 6 SUPPORT 1994 391 SUPPORT 1994 amount of $398.75. In the course of her attempts to register the California order, her obligations to Mr. Adams at 391 Support 1994 were held in abeyance. Pursuant to our order of February 2, 1996, which we now acknowledge was improvidently entered, Ms. Hickman was credited with her entire arrearage of $2,727.10. This arrearage figure must now be reinstated. The order was terminated effective in May of 1996 because the child, Sarah, had attained her majority. Arrearages in the amount of $1,196.25 had accrued between February and May. Thus, the total accrued arrearages on this order as of May 1, 1996, were $3,923.35. ORDER AND NOW, this z :~ '~' day of January, 1998, following hearing in this case, our previous orders in this matter are VACATED. The order of court in and for the County of Contra Costs, State of California is herewith registered and arrearages, according to the payment record of the case are herewith set in the amount of $20,150.93. With respect to said amount owed at 6 Support of 1994, the defendant/plaintiff, Mahlon Z. Adams, shall be entitled to a credit of any amounts which are due and which remain unpaid in the support action docketed to 391 Support of 1994, which amounts have been determined to be $3,923.35. BY THE COURT, v~. Hess, J.