In the case Carolyn Attaway v. Denver Attaway, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee upheld the lower court’s decision to enforce a 1978 Georgia divorce decree that mandated child support payments of $200 per month until the child turned 18, married, died, or became self-supporting. The defendant's claims of res judicata were dismissed, as the relevant Oklahoma case had been dismissed without prejudice. The trial court awarded the plaintiff child support arrears, health insurance premiums, and medical expense reimbursements, granting the defendant a credit for Social Security payments made from January 1991 to 1996, but denied reimbursement for extraordinary educational costs. The defendant contended that the claim for arrears was barred by the statute of limitations; however, the court found that Tennessee’s law, amended in 1997, allows for child support judgments to be enforceable without a time limit. The appellate court relied on the case Anderson v. Harrison, which supported the enforcement of child support claims beyond the ten-year statute of limitations applicable to other judgments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, maintaining the presumption of correctness regarding factual determinations while conducting a de novo review of legal conclusions.
The Court reversed a prior ruling, granting child support retroactively from the date of divorce. An amendment to T.C.A. 36-5-103(g) was determined to eliminate the ten-year statute of limitations on the enforcement of child support orders. Consequently, the trial court's ruling that the statute barred the Plaintiff’s claims for child support arrears was deemed erroneous. The case was remanded for the trial court to calculate additional arrears owed from December 1981 to October 1987.
Despite the Defendant's argument that no enforceable judgment existed at the time of the divorce, the Anderson case established that the initial decree included a binding promise for support, qualifying as an enforceable judgment. The Court found that the Defendant's interpretation of the ten-year statute of limitations in conjunction with T.C.A. 36-5-101(a)(5) was flawed and would undermine the purpose of the amended statute.
The Plaintiff’s actions to register the foreign judgment were aimed at enforcing the original support order rather than modifying it. The analysis was further supported by precedent from County of San Mateo v. Green. The Court also addressed Social Security payments made to the child, allowing the Defendant credit for these payments against his support obligations for the specified period but not for the surplus amount received. The majority of courts permit such credits for Social Security payments, as established in Sherrell v. Sawyer.
The Trial Court determined that the defendant would receive credit for child support during the period Social Security payments were made, but not for any 'overpayments,' as the Social Security funds were deemed sufficient for the child's needs. This case differs from Sherrell, which involved a parent unable to pay due to disability; here, the father was absent and non-compliant with payment obligations. The Court found it appropriate to limit the credit to the time Social Security payments were made. The plaintiff argued that the Court failed to consider $36,322.15 in extraordinary educational expenses for a special needs child, citing Barnett v. Barnett. However, the Court ruled against this claim due to lack of jurisdiction to modify the Georgia support order, which did not include educational expenses. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Tennessee courts can only modify orders from other states under specific conditions, which were not met in this case. The trial court affirmed that it lacked jurisdiction to increase the judgment for educational expenses against the defendant, who resides in Arizona. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, with costs of the appeal assessed to Denver Attaway.
