Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV14-0012
11-25-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY (SUSAN ANN POTTS), Petitioners/Appellees, v. KEITH LESLIE DRUNASKY, Respondent/Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By JoAnn Falgout Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee State of Arizona Keith Leslie Drunasky, Litchfield Park Respondent/Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2006-002676, LC2009-000205-001
(Consolidated)
The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By JoAnn Falgout
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee State of Arizona
Keith Leslie Drunasky, Litchfield Park
Respondent/Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge John C. Gemmill joined. NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 In this appeal, Appellant/Respondent Keith Leslie Drunasky ("Father") argues the family court misapplied § 26(B) of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 25-320 app. § 26(B) (Supp. 2014), in refusing to give him a credit toward interest on unpaid child support. As we explain, the family court properly applied § 26(B), and therefore, we affirm the family court's ruling.
Although the Arizona Legislature amended certain statutes cited in this decision after the date of the judgment establishing Father's child support obligation, the revisions are immaterial to the resolution of this appeal. Thus, we cite to the current version of these statutes.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 In September 2006, the State of Arizona obtained a judgment establishing Father's monthly child support obligation for K. and assessing child support arrearages, interest, and costs. Father made some payments to Ann Potts, K.'s mother ("Mother") over the years, but continued to accumulate arrearages and interest on his monthly obligation.
¶3 Effective March 1, 2010, Father qualified for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. Because K. qualified to receive a derivative benefit as Father's dependent, the Social Security Administration started sending Mother, the custodial parent, monthly checks in the amount of $515. Meanwhile, the State withheld $205 from Father's monthly SSI checks for arrearages.
¶4 Father had also sought Social Security Disability Income ("SSDI") benefits, and he prevailed on his claim in April 2013. This ruling produced two lump-sum SSDI payments. Mother received $11,017.50, which the State characterized as derivative benefits Father had owed since January 2011. Father also received $10,551.60, for which the State issued a withholding order and applied to his child support arrearages in September 2013. Notwithstanding these payments, the State reported that Father owed $9,372.29 in past due support obligations as of September 30, 2013. ¶5 Father moved for a hearing or settlement conference and requested that any amount paid to Mother on K.'s behalf in excess of his $289 support obligation be applied to Father's total balance, including his accrued interest and arrearages. He also contended the State had failed to correctly credit the two lump-sum SSDI payments and his monthly SSI check withholdings.
¶6 After a hearing, the family court ordered the State to: (1) credit the $10,551.60 payment against the support obligation effective June 1, 2013, instead of September 2013; (2) offset the $11,017.50 payment against the support obligation effective March 1, 2010, instead of January 2011 (thereby crediting Father for $7,803 of the total payment, but not the $3,214.50 balance), and (3) verify whether $205 had been withheld from Father's separate SSI check for the past five months and credit Father for any such payments. The court also held, however, that amounts in excess of the child support obligation received by Mother could not be applied to Father's arrearages or accrued interest.
DISCUSSION
We review the family court's interpretation of the Child Support Guidelines de novo. See Clay v. Clay, 208 Ariz. 200, 202, ¶ 5, 92 P.3d 426, 428 (App. 2004).
--------
¶7 Father argues the family court misapplied § 26(B) by not offsetting $3,214.50 of the $11,017.50 lump-sum payment to Mother against Father's accrued interest. Section 26(B) provides:
Benefits, such as Social Security Disability or Insurance, received by a custodial parent on behalf of a child, as a result of contributions made by the parent paying child support shall be credited as follows:
1. If the amount of the child's benefit for a given month is equal to or greater than the paying parent's child support obligation, then that parent's obligation is satisfied.
2. Any benefit received by the child for a given month in excess of the child support obligation
shall not be treated as an arrearage payment nor as a credit toward future child support payments.A.R.S. § 25-320 app. § 26(B). ¶8 In Keefer v. Keefer, this court applied § 26(B) and held that a father paying child support is entitled to a credit in the amount of excess SSDI payments to the custodial parent on his child's behalf toward his share of unreimbursed medical expenses incurred for the child's benefit. 225 Ariz. 437, 439, ¶ 2, 441, ¶ 14, 239 P.3d 756, 758, 760 (App. 2010). We held, however, that § 26(B) prohibits "the application of any excess SSDI benefits retroactively or prospectively; they may not be treated as an arrearage payment or as a credit toward future child support payments." Id. at 441, ¶ 14, 239 P.3d at 760. The father's credit was limited to the amount of child support that had not become an arrearage. Id. ¶9 Under Keefer, Father is not entitled to a credit toward arrearages for amounts paid in excess of the child support obligation established by the family court. See id. "'Arrearage' means the total unpaid support owed, including child support, past support, spousal maintenance and interest." A.R.S. § 25-500(1) (Supp. 2014). Because interest is part of Father's arrearage, he was not entitled to offset SSDI payments against it. See Keefer, 225 Ariz. at 441, ¶ 14, 239 P.3d at 760.
¶10 Father also argues Mother has received a "windfall" in "excess" payments that in all fairness should be credited to him. The funds Father wants to credit against accrued interest come from his federal SSDI benefits, which are based upon his own disability but payable to his child. 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) (2013); Sims v. Harris, 607 F.2d 1253, 1255-56 (9th Cir. 1979) (SSDI benefits provide a wage earner's dependents with protection against economic hardship in the event of loss of earnings). As such, K. was not receiving "an apportionment of Father's benefits but, rather, a separate and distinct entitlement available because of Father's disability." See Clay, 208 Ariz. at 202, ¶ 8, 92 P.3d at 428. Although Mother is identified as the payee, the dependency benefits belong to K. See id.
¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the family court's ruling denying Father a credit toward interest on unpaid child support.