{ "id": 4180996, "name": "State of North Carolina on behalf of ANGELA R. BENFORD, Plaintiff v. LARRY D. BRYANT, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Benford v. Bryant", "decision_date": "2010-11-16", "docket_number": "No. COA10-433", "first_page": "165", "last_page": "169", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "208 N.C. App. 165" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "623 S.E.2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634598 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276", "parenthetical": "\"Since the child support due under the 1994 Florida order vested when it became due, this State must give full faith and credit to the Florida order and enforce the past-due child support obligation.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "653 S.E.2d 192", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639899 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/653/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8350745 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163", "parenthetical": "\"Since the child support due under the 1994 Florida order vested when it became due, this State must give full faith and credit to the Florida order and enforce the past-due child support obligation.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "741 N.W.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71", "parenthetical": "explaining that \"ramification[]\" of Mich. Comp. Laws \u00a7 552.603 \"is that a court may not retroactively modify an accumulated child support arrearage\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 Mich. App. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich. App.", "case_ids": [ 5814787 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428-29", "parenthetical": "explaining that \"ramification[]\" of Mich. Comp. Laws \u00a7 552.603 \"is that a court may not retroactively modify an accumulated child support arrearage\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich-app/276/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "Mich. Comp. Laws \u00a7 552.603", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Mich. Comp. Laws", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 S.E.2d 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587" }, { "page": "587" }, { "page": "587" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 N.C. App. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521273 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349-50" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/49/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 806", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2551176, 2550347, 2552492, 2550867, 2550970 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0806-01", "/nc/337/0806-05", "/nc/337/0806-04", "/nc/337/0806-02", "/nc/337/0806-03" ] }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "894" }, { "page": "894", "parenthetical": "holding that where child support arrearages could not be modified retroactively under Georgia law, \"the trial court erred in modifying the Georgia support order by forgiving defendant for the accrued arrearages\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12121345 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37" }, { "page": "38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "523 S.E.2d 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718", "parenthetical": "holding full faith and credit clause requires North Carolina courts to enforce arrearages accruing under another state's child support order" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. App. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11238315 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66-67", "parenthetical": "holding full faith and credit clause requires North Carolina courts to enforce arrearages accruing under another state's child support order" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/136/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "503 S.E.2d 686", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692", "parenthetical": "\"Under G.S. 52C-3-305, the trial court in the responding state is authorized to determine the amount of arrears and the method of payment.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. App. 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11468882 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560", "parenthetical": "\"Under G.S. 52C-3-305, the trial court in the responding state is authorized to determine the amount of arrears and the method of payment.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/130/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 S.E.2d 610", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613-14", "parenthetical": "\"Enacted by states as a mechanism to reduce the multiple, conflicting child support orders existing in numerous states, UIFSA creates a structure designed to provide for only one controlling support order at a time[.]\"" }, { "page": "614" }, { "page": "615" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N.C. App. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9185889 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243", "parenthetical": "\"Enacted by states as a mechanism to reduce the multiple, conflicting child support orders existing in numerous states, UIFSA creates a structure designed to provide for only one controlling support order at a time[.]\"" }, { "page": "245" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/157/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "491 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" }, { "page": "663" }, { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11798444 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524" }, { "page": "525" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 N.C. App. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8374767 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "462" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/187/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "679 S.E.2d 151", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "152" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 525, "char_count": 10213, "ocr_confidence": 0.72, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.13736032486836106 }, "sha256": "50751f5ffe61b26f018c3718511724c0670d5e56c2636379f9bf16a7d9dbab50", "simhash": "1:d8c8c03ffc1f0964", "word_count": 1675 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:36.775795+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "State of North Carolina on behalf of ANGELA R. BENFORD, Plaintiff v. LARRY D. BRYANT, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.\nThe State of North Carolina, on behalf of Angela R. Benford, appeals from the trial court\u2019s order directing defendant Larry D. Bryant to pay $2,916.00 in child support arrears. Because we agree with the State\u2019s contention that the trial court impermissibly modified Mr. Bryant\u2019s child support obligation retroactively, we reverse the court\u2019s order and remand for further proceedings.\nFacts\nWhile living in Michigan, Ms. Benford (then Bryant) and Mr. Bryant separated in June 2004. The Michigan trial court entered a \u201cJudgment of Divorce\u201d on 4 January 2006 (the \u201cMichigan judgment\u201d), which, in addition to granting the parties a divorce, awarded custody of the couple\u2019s five children to Ms. Benford and ordered Mr. Bryant to pay child support in the amount of $486.00 per month. In an order entered 11 May 2007, the Michigan trial court awarded Mr. Bryant \u201cparenting time\u201d with his five children.\nAlthough it is unclear when Ms. Benford and the children moved to North Carolina, she registered the Michigan judgment in Carteret County on 24 September 2007. After holding a hearing on 17 December 2007, the Carteret County District Court entered an order on 1 April 2008 confirming the registration of the Michigan judgment. The Carteret County Child Support Enforcement Agency moved to intervene in the matter, alleging that \u201csince the entry of the [order confirming the registration of the Michigan judgment,] [Mr. Bryant] has become delinquent in his child support obligation and [Ms. Benford] is now in need of establishing arrears and setting a payment plan on the same[.]\u201d After conducting a hearing on the State\u2019s motion and allegations, the trial court entered an order on 5 June 2008, permitting the State to intervene and ordering Mr. Bryant to pay $486.00 a month in child support beginning June 2008. The trial court\u2019s order, however, did not resolve \u201c[t]he issue of arrears\u201d and left the \u201cissue [to] be recalendered for such determination in the future.\u201d\nThe matter was continued until 26 March 2009 when the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on \u201cthe issue of child support arrearages.\u201d In an order entered 30 November 2009, the trial court found that the Michigan judgment, which set Mr. Bryant\u2019s child support payments at $486.00 per month, \u201cwas duly registered in North Carolina for enforcement and/or modification\u201d; that \u201c[Mr. Bryant] ha[d] not filed any motion to modify the Michigan child support order\u201d; that \u201c[Mr. Bryant] testified he made no payments from September, 2007 until June, 2008, a period of ten (10) months or a total of $4,860.00\u201d; and that \u201c[Ms. Benford] testified she received no child support whatsoever for the ten month period 9/07-6/08.\u201d In the decretal portion of its order, the trial court set Mr. Bryant\u2019s arrearages at $2,916.00 and ordered him to \u201cpay said sum by adding an additional $100.00 per month to his existing child support obligation of $486.00, beginning with the April 2009 child support payment and continuing each month thereafter until fully paid.\u201d The State timely appealed to this Court.\nDiscussion\nIn its only contention on appeal, the State argues that the trial court\u2019s order determining the amount of child support arrears owed by Mr. Bryant under the Michigan judgment \u201cwholly contradicts the dictates\u201d of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (\u201cUIFSA\u201d), N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 52C-1-100 to -9.-902 (2009). Whether the trial court complied with the procedures set out in UIFSA is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. State ex rel. Johnson v. Eason, \u2014- N.C. App.-, \u2022 \u2014 , 679 S.E.2d 151,152 (2009); State ex rel. Lively v. Berry, 187 N.C. App. 459, 462, 653 S.E.2d 192, 194 (2007).\nUIFSA, enacted in North Carolina in 1995, was \u201cpromulgated and intended to be used as [a] procedural mechanism[] for the establishment, modification, and enforcement of child and spousal support obligations.\u201d Welsher v. Rager, 127 N.C. App. 521, 524, 491 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1997); accord New Hanover County ex rel. Mannthey v. Kilbourne, 157 N.C. App. 239, 243, 578 S.E.2d 610, 613-14 (2003) (\u201cEnacted by states as a mechanism to reduce the multiple, conflicting child support orders existing in numerous states, UIFSA creates a structure designed to provide for only one controlling support order at a time[.]\u201d). UIFSA establishes a \u201cone order system\u201d in which \u201call states adopting UIFSA are required to recognize and enforce the same obligation consistently.\u201d Welsher, 127 N.C. App. at 525, 491 S.E.2d at 663. Accordingly, once a foreign support order is registered and confirmed by the courts of the responding state, as the Michigan judgment was here, \u201cenforcement is compulsory.\u201d Id. at 526, 491 S.E.2d at 664; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 52C-6-603 and -6-607.\nIn enforcing a registered foreign support order, UIFSA authorizes the trial court to \u201c[d]etermine the amount of any arrears, and specify a method of payment[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 52C-3-305(b)(4); accord State ex rel. George v. Bray, 130 N.C. App. 552, 560, 503 S.E.2d 686, 692 (1998) (\u201cUnder G.S. 52C-3-305, the trial court in the responding state is authorized to determine the amount of arrears and the method of payment.\u201d). In calculating the amount of arrears, \u201c[t]he court must. . . determine what arrearages have vested.\u201d Kilbourne, 157 N.C. App. at 245, 578 S.E.2d at 614. If the law of the state issuing the support order \u201cprovide [s] that the past-due child support amounts are vested[,]\u201d then the courts of the state in which the foreign support order is registered are required to \u201cgive full faith and credit to the other state\u2019s order and enforce the past-due support obligation.\u201d Id., 578 S.E.2d at 615. See Twaddell v. Anderson, 136 N.C. App. 56, 66-67, 523 S.E.2d 710, 718 (1999) (holding full faith and credit clause requires North Carolina courts to enforce arrearages accruing under another state\u2019s child support order); Transylvania County DSS v. Connolly, 115 N.C. App. 34, 37, 443 S.E.2d 892, 894 (explaining that Georgia child support order was \u201centitled to full faith and credit to the extent it represents past due child support payments which are vested.\u201d), disc. review denied, 337 N.C. 806, 449 S.E.2d 758 (1994); Fleming v. Fleming, 49 N.C. App. 345, 349-50, 271 S.E.2d 584, 587 (1980) (concluding that \u201c[a] decree for the future payment of... child support is, as to installments past due and unpaid, within the protection of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution unless by the law of the state in which the decree was rendered\u201d the amounts are not considered vested).\nMichigan law provides that payments due under a support order vest when they accrue: \u201c[A] support order that is part of a judgment or is an order in a domestic relations matter is a judgment on and after the date the support amount is due . . . , with the full force, effect, and attributes of a judgment of this state, and is not, on and after the date it is due, subject to retroactive modification.\u201d Mich. Comp. Laws \u00a7 552.603(2) (2009); see also Fisher v. Fisher, 276 Mich. App. 424, 428-29, 741 N.W.2d 68, 71 (2007) (explaining that \u201cramification[]\u201d of Mich. Comp. Laws \u00a7 552.603 \u201cis that a court may not retroactively modify an accumulated child support arrearage\u201d). Consequently, the Michigan judgment at issue in this case is \u201centitled to full faith and credit and [is] conclusive as to amounts past due.\u201d Fleming, 49 N.C. App. at 350, 271 S.E.2d at 587.\nAs reflected in the trial court\u2019s findings, the Michigan judgment set Mr. Bryant\u2019s child support payments at $486.00 per month. Ms. Benford testified that she did not receive any payments from Mr. Bryant from September 2007 through June 2008. Mr. Bryant also testified that he did not make any payments during this 10-month period. The court found, based on the parties\u2019 testimony, that Mr. Bryant had failed to make 10 monthly payments, totaling $4,860.00. \u201c[T]r[ying] to be . . . fair\u201d to both parties, however, the court ordered Mr. Bryant to pay only the amount due for the six-month period starting after the registration of the Michigan judgment was confirmed in December 2007 until June 2008, totaling $2,916.00. This the court could not do. As $4,860.00 in monthly support payments had accrued under the Michigan judgment and vested under Michigan law, \u201c[t]he trial [court] was not free, consistent with full faith and credit, to find any other figure as [Mr. Bryant]\u2019s debt under the [Michigan judgment].\u201d Id. at 351, 271 S.E.2d at 587. See also N.C. Dep\u2019t of Health & Human Services ex rel. Jones v. Jones, 175 N.C. App. 158, 163, 623 S.E.2d 272, 276 (2005) (\u201cSince the child support due under the 1994 Florida order vested when it became due, this State must give full faith and credit to the Florida order and enforce the past-due child support obligation.\u201d); Connolly, 115 N.C. App. at 38, 443 S.E.2d at 894 (holding that where child support arrearages could not be modified retroactively under Georgia law, \u201cthe trial court erred in modifying the Georgia support order by forgiving defendant for the accrued arrearages\u201d). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges CALABRIA and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Gerald K. Robbins, for the State.", "No brief filed on behalf of defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "State of North Carolina on behalf of ANGELA R. BENFORD, Plaintiff v. LARRY D. BRYANT, Defendant\nNo. COA10-433\n(Filed 16 November 2010)\nChild Custody and Support\u2014 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act \u2014 child support arrears \u2014 vested support payments\nThe trial court\u2019s order directing defendant to pay $2,966.00 in child support arrears under a Michigan judgment did not comply with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. As $4,860.00 in monthly support payments had accrued under the Michigan judgment and vested under Michigan law, the trial court was not free, consistent with full faith and credit, to find any other figure as defendant\u2019s debt under the Michigan judgment.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 30 November 2009 by Judge Jerry F. Waddell in Carteret County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 October 2010.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Gerald K. Robbins, for the State.\nNo brief filed on behalf of defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0165-01", "first_page_order": 189, "last_page_order": 193 }