Swaney v. Granger

[FAMILY LAW]

In Swaney v. Granger,[1] the supreme court held that modification of child support orders in existence before the initial motion for modification is served on the opposing party is improper.[2] In 2005, the lower court granted Granger and Swaney a divorce and issued a child custody and support order covering their four minor children.[3] In 2008, Granger filed a motion to modify the child custody and support order.[4] The lower court subsequently granted the motion.[5] The court, however, only modified the custody aspect of the order, leaving the child support aspect to be determined later.[6] Three years later the lower court revisited the issue and modified the child support aspect of the order as well, retroactively changing the amount of several of the child support payments due to be paid before the motion for modification was served on Swaney in 2008.[7] On appeal, Swaney argued that modifying child support orders in this manner violated Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3.[8] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3 prohibited the retroactive modification of existing child support orders for the period before the motion for modification was served on the opposing party.[9] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that modification of child support orders in existence before the initial motion for modification is served on the opposing party is improper.[10]

 



[1] 297 P.3d 132 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 136.

[3] Id. at 133.

[4] Id. at 134.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 136.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

Swaney v. Granger

[FAMILY LAW]

In Swaney v. Granger,[1] the supreme court held that modification of child support orders in existence before the initial motion for modification is served on the opposing party is improper.[2] In 2005, the lower court granted Granger and Swaney a divorce and issued a child custody and support order covering their four minor children.[3] In 2008, Granger filed a motion to modify the child custody and support order.[4] The lower court subsequently granted the motion.[5] The court, however, only modified the custody aspect of the order, leaving the child support aspect to be determined later.[6] Three years later the lower court revisited the issue and modified the child support aspect of the order as well, retroactively changing the amount of several of the child support payments due to be paid before the motion for modification was served on Swaney in 2008.[7] On appeal, Swaney argued that modifying child support orders in this manner violated Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3.[8] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3 prohibited the retroactive modification of existing child support orders for the period before the motion for modification was served on the opposing party.[9] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that modification of child support orders in existence before the initial motion for modification is served on the opposing party is improper.[10]

 



[1] 297 P.3d 132 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 136.

[3] Id. at 133.

[4] Id. at 134.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 136.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.