Stone v. Henneke

1

2024 VT 26

Santina Stone v. Dale Henneke (Office of Child Support, Appellant)

No. 23-AP-254

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 3, 2024

On Appeal from Superior Court, Windham Unit, Family Division January Term, 2024 Jennifer Barrett, J.

Kyle Hatt, Office of Child Support, Springfield, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dale Henneke, Pro Se, La Luz, New Mexico, Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Eaton, Carroll, Cohen and Waples, JJ.

WAPLES, J.

¶ 1. This appeal concerns the currency-exchange method applicable to a child-support order issued by a Canadian court. The Office of Child Support (OCS) appeals a decision of the family division concluding that the magistrate acted within her discretion in using a different currency-conversion method for calculating arrears than OCS had employed to collect payments due under the order. We affirm the family division's ruling that the magistrate had discretion to use a different conversion method. However we reverse the portion of its order upholding the magistrate's determination that mother owed father as a result of the recalculated currency conversion and vacate the magistrate's order directing mother to pay father.

¶ 2. The following facts are drawn from the decisions below. Mother and father were previously married and lived together in Canada with their child. They separated and in 2010, the Superior Court of Justice for Kitchener, Ontario awarded mother sole custody of the child. That court ordered father to pay monthly child support of $1003 Canadian dollars (CAD) beginning immediately and $2250 CAD in spousal support beginning in April 2011 and terminating in April 2017. Under the order, interest accrued on arrears at two percent per annum. Although the order anticipated that mother and child would move to Vermont, the order did not contain any provision governing currency conversions that might be necessary due to mother's relocation.

¶ 3. After the Canadian court issued its order, mother and child moved to Vermont. Father later moved to New Mexico. In 2013, the Ontario support enforcement agency stopped providing services to mother, and she requested services from OCS. OCS did not initially seek to register the order with a Vermont court and instead used an administrative process to collect support. When OCS began collecting support, it converted father's obligation from Canadian to U.S dollars using the Bank of Canada exchange rate in effect on February 23, 2010, the date of the Canadian order. This resulted in a monthly child-support obligation of $953.69 U.S. dollars (USD) and a spousal-support obligation of $2139.39 USD.

¶ 4. From November 2013 to April 2017, OCS collected $3093.08 USD per month from father. After April 2017, when the spousal-support obligation terminated, OCS collected $953.69 USD per month. OCS did not adjust the amounts based on fluctuations in the exchange rate. Father never objected to administrative withholding or sought to modify his support obligation.

¶ 5. In October 2020, OCS filed a motion with the Vermont family division seeking to register the Canadian order and to modify father's child-support obligation to zero because the parties' child was no longer living with mother. OCS also asked the court to adjudicate child and spousal support arrears. According to OCS's records, father missed some payments in 2018 and 2019 and made partial payments for several months during that time, resulting in an arrearage.

¶ 6. In May 2021, the Vermont magistrate granted OCS's motion to register the Canadian order.^[1] After a hearing in August 2021, the magistrate issued an order modifying the child-support obligation to zero because child was no longer residing with mother.

¶ 7. The magistrate held a further hearing in November 2021 at which OCS presented case accounting affidavits in support of its position that father owed $9811.14 USD in child-support arrears exclusive of interest, and owed interest on spousal-support arrears. Father opposed OCS's calculation of arrears, arguing that OCS should have applied the exchange rate in effect at the time he made each payment. He argued that it was unfair to apply the rate in effect in February 2010 because the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar had declined significantly since then.

¶ 8. In a December 2021 order, the magistrate concluded that it was permissible under 15B V.S.A. § 1307(d) for OCS to calculate the amount of father's obligation using the exchange rate in effect on the date of the Canadian order. However, after considering case law from other states, the magistrate determined that OCS should calculate father's arrears for each year using the exchange rate in effect on the first day of the year. The magistrate reasoned that this approach was supported by the statute and would provide a consistent and predictable measure of support income. The magistrate directed OCS to submit updated case-accounting affidavits using this method.

¶ 9. In January 2022, OCS submitted updated calculations using the method prescribed by the magistrate, which indicated that instead of owing arrears, father had overpaid $11,892.13 USD in support to mother. Following hearings held in May and November 2022, the magistrate issued orders determining that father had overpaid support and directing mother to repay father $11,892.13 USD at a rate of $50 per month.

¶ 10. OCS, father, and mother each appealed from the magistrate's decision to the family division of the superior court. OCS argued that the magistrate erred in ordering it to recalculate father's arrearage using a new method where the magistrate found that OCS's method complied with the statute. OCS and mother both argued that the recalculation of support resulted in a retroactive modification of child support impermissible under 15 V.S.A § 660(e). Father argued that his obligation should have been converted using the exchange rate on the date of each payment. He argued that because OCS did not register the Canadian order until 2021, it should have enforced the order as written, using the currency stated therein.

¶ 11. The family division affirmed the magistrate's order. The family division reasoned that the court was authorized by 15B V.S.A. § 1305(f) to convert the amounts specified in the Canadian order to U.S. dollars, and the conversion was not a modification of the support order. It determined that 15 V.S.A. § 660(e) did not bar the magistrate from applying a new conversion rate because no party sought to modify the amount of support due under the Canadian order until OCS asked the court to terminate the child support obligation in 2020. Thus, the Canadian order was the relevant order for purposes of calculating any arrearages. The court determined that the magistrate acted within her discretion in applying a yearly conversion rate in her determination of arrearages, as this method accounted for currency fluctuations and was fair to the parties. OCS appealed to this Court.

¶ 12. Our review of the decision below is based on the record presented to the magistrate. Patnode v. Urette, 2015 VT 70, ¶ 6, 199 Vt. 306, 124 A.3d 430. We will affirm the magistrate's factual findings unless clearly erroneous and will uphold the magistrate's conclusions "if reasonably supported by the findings." Golden v. Worthington, 2020 VT 71, ¶ 7, 213 Vt. 77, 239 A.3d 259. We review questions of law de novo. Miller v. Miller, 2005 VT 89, ¶ 10, 178 Vt. 273, 882 A.2d 1196.

¶ 13. The facts here are undisputed. At issue in this appeal is whether the magistrate erred in applying a different currency-conversion method when calculating arrears under the Canadian order than the method OCS used in administratively collecting payment under the order. This question requires us to interpret various provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), 15B V.S.A. §§ 1101-1903. Our primary goal when interpreting a statute is "to determine the intent of the [L]egislature." In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 301, 553 A.2d 1078, 1083 (1988). We look first to the plain language of the statute, and if that is unclear, "[t]he intent should be gathered from a consideration of the whole and every part of the statute, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the reason and spirit of the law." Langrock v. Dep't of Taxes, 139 Vt. 108, 110, 423 A.2d 838, 839 (1980) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).

¶ 14. "UIFSA was designed to expedite the interstate enforcement of child support orders through uniform procedures." Off. of Child Support ex rel. Lewis v. Lewis, 2004 VT 127, ¶ 11, 178 Vt. 204, 882 A.2d 1128. Vermont, like every other state, has adopted the 2008 version of UIFSA, which contains provisions governing the family division's enforcement and modification of child-support orders issued by courts in foreign countries as well as other states.^[2] See generally 15B V.S.A. §§ 1101-1903; Baron v. McGinty, 2021 VT 6, ¶ 15, 214 Vt. 141, 252 A.3d 291 (discussing scope of UIFSA); 23 Am. Jur. 2d Desertion and Nonsupport § 74 (stating that 2008 version of UIFSA has been adopted in all fifty states). "The primary aim of UIFSA is to ensure that states do not second-guess the support orders of other states, thereby opening the door to forum shopping and the proliferation of conflicting orders." OCS/Glenn Pappas v. O'Brien, 2013 VT 11, ¶ 29, 193 Vt. 340, 67 A.3d 916.

¶ 15. The family division is Vermont's authorized UIFSA tribunal. 15B V.S.A. § 1103(a). Here, the family division was acting as a "responding tribunal." Id. § 1102(23)-(24) (defining responding tribunal as authorized tribunal in state in which petition for support is filed). In that role, it was empowered to enforce and modify the Canadian order and to "determine the amount of any arrearages, and...