Messed-Up Modification May Have Left Me Unable to Collect Arrears

My question involves child support in the State of: Texas and California
My situation seems to encompass a variety of topics, so please forgive me if this isn't the right area.
First, a little history:

The original order for child support (entitled, JUDGMENT) was granted in 2002 in California, our mutual state of residence at the time. Both parties later moved to other states - CP to TX, NCP to FL.
In 2003, a California court issued a modification of support and an order for payment of arrears (entitled, STIPULATION AND ORDER THEREON) b/c NCP did not pay child support for the first year after the Judgment.

In 2006, NCP petitioned Texas court for, and was granted, a reduction in child support. The Order (entitled, Order Modifying Child Support) states that "All prior orders for the support of (the children) are superseded by this Order. (If this includes my California STIPULATION order for arrears, then it would effectively erase the $11,000+ that NCP owed.)

However, TX FAMILY CODE § 157.269. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION states, "A court that renders an order providing for the payment of child support arrearages retains jurisdiction until all current support and medical support and child support arrearages, including interest and any applicable fees and costs, have been paid."

Furthermore, in 2006, when NCP's attorney registered the California order in Texas for the purpose of modification, he only registered the original JUDGMENT and not the STIPULATION.

So, my first question is, Does TFC 157.269 apply to ANY court, even other states, or does this only apply to TX courts?

Second, since only the JUDGMENT was registered in TX, can the MODIFYING ORDER issued in TX supersede the STIPLUATION – one, because it was never registered here, and two, because TFC 159.267 and the arrearages not being paid?

Thirdly, even if the TFC does not apply and even if the STIPLATION didn’t have to be registered in TX in order to proceed with the modification, then can the 2006 Texas MODIFCATION supersede the 2002 JUDGMENT that was already superseded by the 2003 STIPULATION? In other words, did the atty seek to modify the WRONG order?

Fourthly, are my arrears gone for good?

Finally, if TFC 157.269 does apply to other states, then did the TX court improperly claim jurisdiction over this case? If so, will that help me get the arrears back? Can I get the TX modification nullified?

To further complicate things, NCP is seeking to reduce child support yet again as my eldest is graduating from HS next week. As proof of income, I received documentation that shows he lied in court 6 years ago about his employment and omitted a portion of income that would have left him paying as much as, if not more than, the amount that was originally ordered in California. What, if anything, can I do about any of this?

Thanks, in advance, for any and all help! Sorry if any of this was muddled or redundant!


for clarification:
Doc A. "Judgment" issued in California 2002 - original order for child support, modified by Stipulation, and later registered in, and modified by TX court.
Doc B. "Stipulation" issued in California 2003 - modified child support of the Judgment, ordered payment of arrears.
Doc C. "Modification" issued in Texas in 2006 - modified child support of the Judgment and supersedes all prior orders for the support of the children.

What did you do to contest the issue when it was filed on the Texas court. Since California had jurisdiction Texas had no authority to do anything concerning the child support unless a change of jurisdiction was applied for and granted.

- - - Updated - - -

What did you do to contest the issue when it was filed on the Texas court. Since California had jurisdiction Texas had no authority to do anything concerning the child support unless a change of jurisdiction was applied for and granted.

NCP applied for the change of jurisdiction and it was granted. I contested the jurisdiction at the hearing based on the code. I think I even asked that the modification be dismissed, but that part is fuzzy to me. (It was seven years ago, and I was a nervous wreck because I was defending pro se.) The judge granted the request and we proceeded with the hearing right then and there despite other protests I made about discovery. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the judge's reasons or explanation were for disallowing the objection to the change of jurisdiction, but I think it was simply that because the children were residents of Texas, then that's who had jurisdiction. I never expected the case to be so complicated. All I really wanted was for the lawyer to correct his numbers (he miscalculated the support according to the guideline) but he wouldn't so instead we ended up in court. After I was served, I started looking into the matter more carefully and found the jurisdiction code. I prepared a motion for a new trial stating the reasons above, but never filed it as I was advised by an atty that there was not enough to warrant a new trial. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing so I will know exactly what was said and done, but it seems it could take a while to get it. I have asked other lawyers about the code, but they are all of the same mindset that states are allowed to transfer jurisdiction between one another for the sake of modification and enforcement. They seem to gloss over the arrearages part, which is why I thought maybe I didn't understand what I was reading, or that perhaps there is more to it than what is written there.

Quote:

---

TX FAMILY CODE § 157.269. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION states, "A court that renders an order providing for the payment of child support arrearages retains jurisdiction until all current support and medical support and child support arrearages, including interest and any applicable fees and costs, have been paid."

---

California has one of those as well.



http://law.onecle.com/california/family/4909.html

Quote:

---

4909. (a) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order
consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction over a child support order:
(1) As long as this state remains the residence of the obligor,
the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support
order is issued; or
(2) Until all of the parties who are individuals have filed
written consents with the tribunal of this state for a tribunal of
another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction.
(b) A tribunal of this state issuing a child support order
consistent with the law of this state may not exercise its continuing
jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a
tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law
substantially similar to this chapter.
(c) If a child support order of this state is modified by a
tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law
substantially similar to this chapter, a tribunal of this state loses
its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction with regard to prospective
enforcement of the order issued in this state, and may only:
(1) Enforce the order that was modified as to amounts accruing
before the modification;
(2) Enforce nonmodifiable aspects of that order; and
(3) Provide other appropriate relief for violations of that order
which occurred before the effective date of the modification.
(d) A tribunal of this state shall recognize the continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of another state which has
issued a child support order pursuant to this chapter or a law
substantially similar to this chapter.
(e) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending
resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.
(f) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent
with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support
obligation. A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support
order issued by a tribunal of another state having continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state.

---

that states that California retains jurisdiction over the order up until the time it was modified by Texas. It retains jurisdiction over the money accrued while California had jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

In 2006, NCP petitioned Texas court for, and was granted, a reduction in child support. The Order (entitled, Order Modifying Child Support) states that "All prior orders for the support of (the children) are superseded by this Order. (If this includes my California STIPULATION order for arrears, then it would effectively erase the $11,000+ that NCP owed.)

---

why do you believe that? Did anybody in the court or a lawyer tell you the arrears were somehow nullified by that order?

I see no reason to believe the arrears were dropped based on the actions you have gone through. You may or may not be able to use the Texas courts to attempt to collect on the debt. Either California or his resident state of Florida would likely be the courts used due to his resident state being Florida and the order entered in California. Generally to utilize the courts of a state foreign to the original order, you must domesticate the order in the state you wish to use. Since he does not reside in Texas, I do not believe Texas would allow for the domestication in their state.

Thanks for posting the CA statutes. It hadn't occurred to me to consult their laws.

I did speak to an atty here last week who thought that the language, "supersedes all prior orders" may nullify the arrearages because the payment for arrearages was a prior order and because the arrearages are not specifically addressed by the most recent (TX) modification order. She said we may need to ask the judge to clarify whether or not it was his intention to erase the arrearages.

I believe it is as simple as enforcing the order under which the arrears accrued. Texas cannot nullify a the prior actions from a prior order. They have no jurisdiction over the matter since nobody lived in Texas.

I hope you're right. I will look into enforcement. The kids and I live in Texas (and have since May 2001) which is why NCP needed to register/domicile the order here (in TX) in order to modify/reduce support, and when he did register the order, the TX court then had the right to claim jurisdiction over the cause according to "full faith and credit."

see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738B

At least, the judge believed the court had proper jurisdiction, aside from the arrearages issue, that is.

Texas did have jurisdiction, it they accepted it and nobody put forth a valid argument it should not be moved to Texas but that is for actions from that point forward. The cannot vacate a prior order and the actions it required from another state.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

nobody put forth a valid argument it should not be moved to Texas

---

not exactly accurate. I did object and had a valid argument but judge overruled. Bottom line: Texas now has jurisdiction, but only for modified child support order that was [illegally?] issued in 2006?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The cannot vacate a prior order and the actions it required from another state.

---

Okay, so how do I collect the arrearages? Which court has the power to enforce the order?

Quote:

---

Amy J;714827]not exactly accurate. I did object and had a valid argument but judge overruled. Bottom line: Texas now has jurisdiction, but only for modified child support order that was [illegally?] issued in 2006?

---

apparently the court did not believe it was a valid objection and that is what matters

Quote:

---

Okay, so how do I collect the arrearages? Which court has the power to enforce the order?

---

that would depend on whether the judgment was domesticated in a state other than California. You could collect under California law but since he is not a resident, that becomes a problem. You will likely be the one collecting on it. If he does not live in Texas, they are not likely to want to do anything with it because they did not issue the order and the judgement debtor does not live in Texas. You will likely have to have it domesticated in his state and make collection efforts there.