State, Department of Revenue v. DeLeon

Citations: 103 P.3d 897; 2004 Alas. LEXIS 153; 2004 WL 2915012Docket: S-11219

Court: Alaska Supreme Court; December 17, 2004; Alaska; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division v. Lisa Sue DeLeon and Edy Guadalup DeLeon, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed whether the superior court could mandate a delinquent parent, Edy DeLeon, to apply for an Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) to satisfy child support obligations. Edy had been ordered in 1998 to pay $600 monthly in child support but had accrued arrears totaling $31,883.63 by April 2003 and had not applied for a PFD since 2000. The Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) sought an order requiring Edy to apply for the PFD annually, arguing that they could seize dividends to offset his arrears. The superior court denied CSED's motion, citing a lack of statutory authority.

CSED appealed, asserting both legal and procedural due process violations. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court's decision, affirming that it has both express statutory authority under AS 22.10.020 and inherent equitable authority to compel Edy to apply for the PFD or prove ineligibility. The court highlighted that AS 22.10.020(c) allows the superior court to issue necessary orders to enforce its jurisdiction, including those related to previously established child support obligations. Thus, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

AS 25.27.080(b) allows CSED to petition the court for orders to assist in enforcing child support. The superior court possesses inherent authority to enforce its decrees, as established in Johnson v. Johnson, where modifications to a divorce decree were upheld despite not being requested by the parties, emphasizing the court's duty to ensure the effectiveness of its decrees, especially for the protection of children's rights. In Horchover v. Field, the court enforced its divorce decrees by ordering an accounting of assets when an appellant failed to comply with a settlement agreement. This inherent power also extends to ordering a parent, Edy, to apply for a permanent fund dividend (PFD) due to his noncompliance with a 1998 child support order. Despite such an order being unusual, Edy’s neglect in fulfilling basic tasks related to the dividend suggests an indifference to the support order, which the court should not permit. The order denying CSED's motion referenced Criminal Rule 39(c)(1)(A), which empowers the court to require defendants to apply for PFDs when they have appointed counsel. However, this does not restrict the superior court's discretion to issue similar orders in civil cases to enforce judgments. The statutory framework for child support aims to ensure parental compliance, allowing the court and CSED various enforcement mechanisms, including income withholding and liens on property.

The express authorization for specific measures to enforce child support orders does not exclude other potential measures sought by the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED). The legal principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius suggests that a statute listing certain powers implicitly excludes others; however, this principle does not apply if it contradicts the statute’s purpose. The intent of AS 25.27 is to ensure parents fulfill child support obligations, and restricting the superior court's authority would undermine this goal. AS 25.27.080(b) empowers CSED to take necessary legal actions to enforce child support orders, which would be pointless if the court could only issue specified orders. Consequently, AS 25.27 does not prevent the superior court from utilizing its authority to enforce a 1998 child support order by requiring Edy to apply for his permanent fund dividends. The court's July 1, 2003 order is reversed and remanded for further consideration of whether the circumstances warrant the issuance of the requested order, and the procedural due process arguments raised by CSED will not be addressed given the remand.