Smith v. State ex rel. Rambo

Citations: 30 S.W.3d 925; 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1671Docket: No. 28259

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; November 7, 2000; Missouri; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A judgment was issued by the Butler County circuit court, at the request of Billy E. Smith (Relator), prohibiting Missouri’s Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, from pursuing further child support collections against him. The court also directed the Division to release Relator from any administrative actions taken against him. The Division appealed, citing four reversible errors, but the court affirmed in part while reversing in part.

Relator was established as the natural father of Jeremy W. Rambo on March 10, 1982, with a child support obligation of $199 per month. He made sporadic payments, leading to instances where the mother, Debbie Carrier, received public assistance, creating a "state debt" for Relator. In March 1994, Relator paid $7,210.97 towards his obligation, after which the Division issued an Administrative Order on his child support, initially stating he owed $14,879.97, later amended to $7,139.

Following an evidentiary hearing, a hearing officer found Relator's total obligation from March 1982 to December 1994 was $30,646.99, with only $8,382.80 paid, leaving a balance of $22,263.20. Relator did not contest this finding but filed a motion to modify the support order. During a modification hearing on August 28, 1996, where neither Mother nor the Division appeared, the court terminated Relator's obligation and found that his March 1994 payment satisfied his obligation to the State. The court declared any further child support owed to the State was abated, and neither Mother nor the Division appealed this judgment.

On February 28, 1997, Division issued an Administrative Order of Enforcement (AOEO) stating that Relator owed $26,376.99 in past-due child support. Relator requested an administrative hearing, which was set for June 12, 1997, but subsequently filed a case to compel Division to dismiss the action. The writ court concluded that Relator did not owe any state debt but also determined that the modification court did not prevent Mother from collecting child support arrears owed to her individually, only terminating Relator's future obligations. Despite this, the writ court issued an order prohibiting Division from collecting any amounts on behalf of the state or Mother and directed Division to release Relator from any administrative actions taken against him.

On appeal, Division argued that the writ court exceeded its authority by preventing Division from assisting Mother in collecting her child support arrears. The court agreed, citing the Child Support Enforcement Act, which mandates that Division assist both public assistance recipients and non-recipients in child support enforcement. The authority for Division to provide these services is explicitly outlined in Missouri statute 454.425 and further supported by 454.400.2, which allows Division to enforce support obligations for custodial parents upon their application.

The court clarified that the prohibition from the writ court contravened the legislative intent. It emphasized that Division's actions in issuing the AOEO and scheduling a hearing were within its jurisdiction and authority, as they are services the legislature empowered Division to render. Therefore, the judgment prohibiting Division from collecting arrears owed individually to Mother was reversed, affirming Division's right to pursue child support collection for arrears accrued between March 10, 1982, and August 28, 1996.

The trial court allegedly erred in issuing a writ due to lacking subject matter jurisdiction over child support arrearages owed by Relator to both the state and Mother. Division cites RSMo 454.501, arguing that both the writ court and modification court were precluded from altering a final arrearage order because Relator failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review as mandated by RSMo 536.110 and 454.501. However, these issues were deemed moot following a favorable decision for Division on a prior point, as Relator's state debt was not in question. During the trial, Division’s counsel acknowledged that Relator’s March 1994 payment of $7,200 fully satisfied the state debt. The court confirmed that this amount aligned with what Mother had received from AFDC. The discussion clarified that the remaining issue pertained to any amounts owed directly to Mother beyond the AFDC payments.

The ruling emphasizes that an actual controversy must exist for appellate jurisdiction, and if a question cannot affect an existing controversy, it is considered moot. Since the court granted Division relief concerning the judgment prohibiting aid to Mother for collecting individual child support amounts, no existing controversy remained. Consequently, Division's second point was moot, and the court opted not to decide on it. Additionally, the court addressed a misunderstanding by Division’s counsel, clarifying that the February 28, 1997, Administrative Order Establishing Obligation (AOEO) did not set arrearages due to Mother or modify the modification court's judgment regarding support amounts.

The February 28, 1997, Administrative Order of Enforcement of Obligation (AOEO) determined child support arrearages owed to Mother from March 10, 1982, to August 28, 1996. There was no evidence of a modification case under Section 454.496, which outlines the necessary procedures for modifying child support obligations. The Division lacked authority to impose a support obligation on Relator without following this procedure. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment that prohibited the Division from providing child support collection services to Mother for any obligation imposed after August 28, 1996, without adherence to the modification procedure. However, the trial court's judgment was reversed regarding the enforcement of collection services for arrearages owed to Mother for the period prior to August 28, 1996. 

The terms "paternity court," "modification court," and "writ court" are used to distinguish between various proceedings in the Butler County circuit court. The definition of "state debt" in Missouri's Child Support Enforcement Act relates to public assistance payments for dependent children. The Division's AOEO did not detail how it calculated the arrearage amount of $26,376.99, but it complied with the modification court's judgment by excluding support amounts post-August 28, 1996. The relevant statutes regarding child support services and modifications were amended effective July 1, 1997, but these amendments did not apply to the Division's actions taken in February 1997. The right to an administrative hearing for parties affected by an AOEO is established under Section 454.476. The procedures for modifying court-ordered child support are specified in Section 454.496, which includes requirements for filing and court approval for any administrative modifications. Points raised by the Division regarding mootness were not addressed.