Main Menu

Aparezuk v. Schlosser

FAMILY LAW

Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Scott Anderson

In Aparezuk v. Schlosser, 514 P.3d 283 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a husband’s duty to pay past due child support was precluded by him financially supporting the children in a shared household with his wife during the period at issue. (Id. at 290–91). In 2013, a married couple separated with a mutual agreement that required the husband to pay $564 per month in child support. (Id. at 284). But following separation, the pair continued to live together in their marital home and the husband provided about two thirds of financial support for the household purely from his own income. (Id. at 284–85). The husband did not pay the $564 per month in child support during this time. (Id. at 285). The wife moved out in 2017 and the couple divorced in 2018. (Id. at 286). The following year, the Child Support Services Division told the husband that he owed a substantial amount of past due child support and garnished his wages, despite his protests that the past due child support covered a time when he lived with his ex-wife and children. (Id.). The husband sought relief in the superior court, which held that an equitable reading of Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(h)(3) precluded collection of the past due child support because the husband provided more than his court-mandated payments. (Id. at 286–87). The wife then appealed to the supreme court and argued that the plain text of Rule 90.3(h)(3) barred the superior court’s holding. (Id. at 287). But the supreme court affirmed the superior court, reasoning that courts could consider what result would be most equitable when a plain text reading would produce an absurd result. (Id. at 288). The court also noted its prior holdings that Rule 90.3(h)(3) could preclude collection when the children still received the requisite support and collection would produce a windfall for the recipient partner. (Id.) Thus, the supreme court held that a husband’s duty to pay past due child support was precluded by him financially supporting the children while still living with his wife during the relevant time period. (Id. at 290–91).

 

Aparezuk v. Schlosser

FAMILY LAW

Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Scott Anderson

In Aparezuk v. Schlosser, 514 P.3d 283 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a husband’s duty to pay past due child support was precluded by him financially supporting the children in a shared household with his wife during the period at issue. (Id. at 290–91). In 2013, a married couple separated with a mutual agreement that required the husband to pay $564 per month in child support. (Id. at 284). But following separation, the pair continued to live together in their marital home and the husband provided about two thirds of financial support for the household purely from his own income. (Id. at 284–85). The husband did not pay the $564 per month in child support during this time. (Id. at 285). The wife moved out in 2017 and the couple divorced in 2018. (Id. at 286). The following year, the Child Support Services Division told the husband that he owed a substantial amount of past due child support and garnished his wages, despite his protests that the past due child support covered a time when he lived with his ex-wife and children. (Id.). The husband sought relief in the superior court, which held that an equitable reading of Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(h)(3) precluded collection of the past due child support because the husband provided more than his court-mandated payments. (Id. at 286–87). The wife then appealed to the supreme court and argued that the plain text of Rule 90.3(h)(3) barred the superior court’s holding. (Id. at 287). But the supreme court affirmed the superior court, reasoning that courts could consider what result would be most equitable when a plain text reading would produce an absurd result. (Id. at 288). The court also noted its prior holdings that Rule 90.3(h)(3) could preclude collection when the children still received the requisite support and collection would produce a windfall for the recipient partner. (Id.) Thus, the supreme court held that a husband’s duty to pay past due child support was precluded by him financially supporting the children while still living with his wife during the relevant time period. (Id. at 290–91).