South Dakota Supreme Court
Office of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Schutz v. Schutz
Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Department of Social Services of the State of South Dakota
311 N.W.2d 208
Decided October 21, 1981
No negative treatmentNo negative treatment found: no reversal on appeal and no treated citing cases.
Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order forgiving the defendant’s child‑support arrearages. It held that the trial court possessed statutory authority to retroactively modify support obligations and that the parties’ agreement constituted a waiver of the State’s claim for arrearages.
Holdings
- Whether the trial court had authority to retroactively modify the defendant’s child‑support arrearages.. The trial court possessed the statutory authority to retroactively modify the child‑support payments.
- Whether the agreement among the parties waived the State’s claim for the arrearages.. By entering into the agreement, the State’s attorney waived the State’s claim for the arrearages.
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
Treatment rows appear when later opinions record how they used this case.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
The State, through the Office of Child Support Enforcement, appeals from an order forgiving defendant’s arrearages for his child support obligation. We affirm.
In 1976, a divorce decree was entered in Meade County, South Dakota, requiring defendant to pay $650 child support monthly for his minor children. In 1977, his former wife assigned to the South Dakota Office of Child Support Enforcement her right to receive the child support payments. The State subsequently brought an action to recover arrearages in defendant’s support obligation. After a number of hearings, the State, the trial court, and defendant agreed that after defendant made two additional payments no arrearages would remain. In its final order, the trial court determined that the arrearages had been brought up to date, that defendant had paid or had been forgiven all arrearages, and that all indebtedness had been “satisfied and forgiven and discharged.”
The State questions whether the trial court had the authority to retroactively modify defendant’s support arrearages. We recently held, however, that “the trial court [has] the power to retroactively modify appellee’s child support payments as evidenced by the discretion it is allotted under SDCL 25-4-41 and SDCL 25-4-45.” State ex rel. Larsgaard v. Larsgaard, 298 N.W.2d 381, 384 (S.D.1980).
The State also argues that the evidence presented to the trial court did not justify the modification of the arrearages because no change in circumstances was shown. See State ex rel. Larsgaard v. Larsgaard, supra. As stated above, however, the record indicates that the State, the trial court, and defendant agreed that defendant’s support obligation would be satisfied after he made two additional payments. Although we have some misgivings about the less than precise manner in which this agreement was established of record, we are constrained to hold that by entering into the agreement the then state’s attorney of Meade County waived the State’s claim for the arrearages. See Roblin v. Palmer, 9 S.D. 36, 67 N.W. 949 (1896).
The order is affirmed.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- State of South Dakota ex rel. Connie Larsgaard, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Romaine O. Larsgaard, Defendant and Appellee1980 S.D. LEXIS 431 (1980)
- People v. Delgadillo14 Cal. 5th 216 (2022)
- Zeller v. Cantu395 Mass. 76 (1985)
- Anthony J. Keller v. Helen M. O'Brien425 Mass. 774 (1997)
- Mary E. Guglietto McKenna v. Lareto Guglietto1996 R.I. LEXIS 254 (1996)