Sanderson v. Harris

Patricia (Langhard) SANDERSON v. Olen D.
HARRIS

97-423                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 11, 1997


1.   Limitation of actions -- ten-year limitations period for
     actions on judgments inapplicable to accrued support
     arrearages. -- The general ten-year statute of limitations for
     actions on judgments, Ark. Code Ann.  16-56-114 (1987), does
     not apply to accrued support arrearages under Ark. Code Ann.
      9-14-234, which provides that accrued support installments
     payable through the registry of the court become final
     judgments; the enactment of Act 1057 of 1987, codified at Ark.
     Code Ann.  9-14-234 and providing for the finality of accrued
     installments, was done to ensure state qualification for
     future federal funding, and was not accompanied by any
     legislative expression to revive the general ten-year
     limitations period; thus, the specific limitations provision
     found in Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236 governs the accrued
     arrearages, and the appellant's action to collect arrearages
     more than five years after the children's eighteenth birthdays
     was barred. 

2.   Parent & child -- limitation of actions -- Ark. Code Ann.  9-
     14-236 applicable to all arrearages paid. -- Appellant's
     contention that the General Assembly intended that the
     limitations period found in Ark. Code Ann. 9-14-236 apply
     only to arrearages not paid through the registry of the court
     was without merit; such a distinction would leave the
     limitations period found in Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236 with
     practically no application; almost all support obligations are
     ordered payable through the registry of the court; numerous
     practical problems would flow from the application of an
     individual limitations period to each accrued installment, and
     it would be difficult to ascertain the precise amount of the
     "judgment" at a given time.

3.   Parent & child -- support installments payable through
     registry of court become final judgments when they accrue --
     general ten-year limitations period inapplicable --
     limitations period in Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236(c) governs. --
     While support installments payable through the court registry
     become final judgments as they accrue pursuant to Ark. Code
     Ann.  9-14-234, the general ten-year statute of limitations
     found at Ark. Code Ann.  16-56-114 does not apply to actions
     to collect such arrearages; the limitations period found at
     Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236(c) governs; because the appellant
     did not institute withholding on the accrued arrearage until
     after both children had turned twenty-three, the trial court
     did not err in granting appellee's petition to terminate the
     collection of child support.


     Appeal from Nevada Chancery Court; Jim Gunter, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     Office of Child Support Enforcement, by:  William F Cavenaugh,
for appellant.
     Harrell & Lindsey, P.A., by: Searcy W. Harrell, Jr., for
appellee.

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     At issue in this case is whether the general ten-year statute
of limitations for actions on judgments applies to actions to
collect support arrearages payable through the registry of the
court, which become final judgments as they accrue pursuant to Ark.
Code Ann.  9-14-234(b) (Supp. 1995).  The trial court concluded
that the ten-year statute of limitations did not apply, and barred
the appellant's action to obtain income withholding from the
obligor's employer following the twenty-third birthdays of the two
children involved.  We affirm the trial court's ruling.
     An August 27, 1987 judgment entered in Nevada County Chancery
Court case number 4897-2 recited that on March 5, 1985, Olen Dale
Harris was ordered to pay $15 weekly child support in two separate
cases, chancery case number 4897-2 and county case number CC-82-5. 
The trial court assumed jurisdiction over CC-82-5, "merging" it
with 4897-2 because the parties in both cases were the same.  Since
the entry of the 1985 order, the trial court found that $3,520 in
total arrearage had accrued -- $1,760 with respect to the minor
child Amanda (date of birth February 23, 1972), and $1,760 as to
the minor child Matthew (date of birth December 1, 1969).  The
trial court reduced this amount to judgment and ordered Harris to
pay $10 weekly in each case, for a total of $20 weekly, towards
satisfying this judgment.  The trial court additionally found that
the circumstances of the parties had changed and that following
August 28, 1987, Harris would be obligated to pay $30 weekly in
support in each case, for a total of $60 weekly.  All support
payments were ordered paid through the registry of the court. 
Patricia Harris, the mother of the children, agreed that Elizabeth
Durham, apparently Matthew's grandmother, would be entitled to
receive the support payments as to Matthew.
     On April 28, 1988, Patricia Sanderson (formerly Harris)
petitioned the trial court for Harris to appear and show cause,
alleging that he had failed to pay child support accruing since
August 28, 1987, and that he had failed to pay on the judgment
rendered against him on August 28, 1987.  On October 5, 1988, the
trial court entered an order finding Harris in contempt and $5,560
in arrears.  The record then shows various notices of income
withholding filed against two of Harris's purported employers.  A
December 31, 1992 notice served on Dwayne Lee Logging shows $30
weekly withholding on a $2060 amount past due in case number 4897-
2.  This is followed by two notices served on Smackover Motors,
Inc., on May 31, 1996.  One shows $30 weekly withholding on a $1940
amount past due in CH4897-2, while the other reflects $30 weekly
withholding on a $5570 amount past due in CH-4897.
     On June 24, 1996, Harris petitioned the trial court in case
number 4897 to enter an order relieving him and his employer,
Smackover Motors, Inc., from paying additional support, claiming
that the children involved in the proceeding had already turned
twenty-three and that the limitations period had run.  OCSE filed
an answer and counterclaim in case number 4897-2.  In its answer,
OCSE clarified that the August 27, 1987 order merged 4897-2,
involving Patricia Sanderson, and CC-82-5, involving Elizabeth
Durham, into case number 4897-2.  Under this order, both children
were provided for, with $30 weekly going to Elizabeth Durham for
Matthew and $30 weekly going to Patricia Sanderson for Amanda. 
While conceding that both children had reached the age of majority,
OCSE argued that Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-235 (Supp. 1995) and 9-14-
236 (Supp. 1995) entitled it to collect the child-support payments,
"which are in arrears from the initial order."  OCSE also
counterclaimed on the $60 weekly support provided for in the August
27, 1987 order, alleging that Harris was $2,580 in arrears as of
July 31, 1996.
     A "Stipulation of Transcript" reflects that the trial court
held a hearing on September 26, 1996, where Harris argued that
since the children were older than twenty-three, the limitations
period found in Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236 barred any attempt at
collection.  OCSE responded that the accrued arrearages "should be
considered as final judgments" pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-
234(b)-(c) (Supp. 1995).  Following the submission of briefs, the
trial court entered an order on October 30, 1996, granting Harris's
petition to terminate given "that actions to enforce child support
are barred by a statute of limitations which runs five years after
the eighteenth birthday of the child."   Sanderson appeals from
this order.
     For her sole point on appeal, Sanderson argues that the
general ten-year limitations period for actions on judgments, Ark.
Code Ann.  16-56-114 (1987), applies to accrued support arrearages
under Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-234, which provides that accrued
support installments payable through the registry of the court
become final judgments.  This issue was decidedly resolved in a
recent case involving the same obligor, Cole v. Harris, 330 Ark.
420, ___ S.W.2d ___ (1997).  In Cole we determined that the
enactment of Act 1057 of 1987, codified at Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-
234 and providing for the finality of accrued installments, was
done to ensure state qualification for future federal funding, and
was not accompanied by any legislative expression to revive the
general ten-year limitations period.  Cole, supra.  Indeed, by
repealing the former ten-year limitations period for support
arrearages formerly provided for by Act 525 of 1989, see 1991 Ark.
Acts 870  1-2 (codified at Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-105 and 9-14-
236), the General Assembly had "made clear its intention that a
ten-year statute of limitations should not apply to actions for
child-support arrearages."  Cole, supra.  Thus, the specific
limitations provision found in Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236 governed
the accrued arrearages, and the appellant's action to collect
arrearages more than five years after the child's eighteenth
birthday was barred.  Cole, supra.
     We disagree with Sanderson's contention that the General
Assembly intended that the limitations period found in Ark. Code
Ann. 9-14-236 apply only to arrearages not paid through the
registry of the court.  Such a distinction would leave the
limitations period found in Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236 with
practically no application.  Notably, all orders requiring payments
for child support are required to direct that payments be made
through the registry of the court, subject to the trial court's
discretion in determining the best interests of the parties.  Ark.
Code Ann.  9-12-312(d) (Supp. 1995).  Given that almost all
support obligations are ordered payable through the registry of the
court, numerous practical problems would flow from the application
of an individual limitations period to each accrued installment,
and it would be difficult to ascertain the precise amount of the
"judgment" at a given time.  Significantly, the emergency clause to
Act 870 provides that "it is in the best interest of the people of
the State of Arkansas that child support be collected and enforced
in the most expedient manner for all children of this state[.]"
(emphasis added).
     The present case is essentially indistinguishable from Cole. 
While support installments payable through the court registry
become final judgments as they accrue, see Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-
234, the general ten-year statute of limitations found at Ark. Code
Ann.  16-56-114 does not apply to actions to collect such
arrearages.  Cole, supra.  Instead, the limitations period found at
Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236(c) governs.  Cole, supra.  Given that
Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-236(c) controls, we do not reach Sanderson's
contention that purported partial payments tolled the ten-year
statute of limitations.  See Cole, supra.  Because the appellant
did not institute withholding on the accrued arrearage until after
both children had turned twenty-three, the trial court did not err
in granting Harris's petition to terminate the collection of child
support.
     Affirmed.