Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RID466220DCS, Matthew C. Perantoni, Commissioner.
Shawna Garrett, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Samuel Deans, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, J.
Shawna Garrett (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order that (1) set Samuel Deans’s (Father) monthly child support payment at $447 per month; (2) declared that as of May 17, 2006, Father owed no child support arrears; and (3) declared that for the period from May 2006 through July 2007, Father was in arrears of $4,400. Mother essentially contends (1) the trial court erred by finding that she made an oral contract with Father to reduce his monthly child support payments to $400 and cancel his arrears; and (2) to the extent it can be found she made such a contract, the court erred by enforcing the agreement, because it was not in the best interests of the child. We reverse the portions of the trial court’s order disputed in this appeal.
FACTS
On July 10, 2007, the court held a hearing regarding Father’s motion to modify his monthly child support payment and arrears. Father argued his support calculation should be modified for two reasons. First, Father pointed out that when the court calculated his support payment, at a prior hearing in 2005, it used a credit application to determine his income. Father argued that his current income was less than that listed on the credit application, and therefore his support payment should be lowered. Second, Father contended that on May 17, 2006, he and Mother agreed that he would pay Mother $5,000 in exchange for her (1) closing her child support case, (2) agreeing to cancel the arrears he owed, and (3) accepting $400 per month in child support.
Mother and the County of Riverside made three arguments. First, it was argued Father owned real estate and earned more money than he claimed. Second, it was argued that the agreement Mother made with Father was that he would give her $5,000 in exchange for her closing her child support case, but that she did not agree to cancel his arrears or set his monthly support payment at $400. Third, it was contended that the oral agreement Father alleged he created with Mother could not supersede the court’s previous order of support.
The court concluded that Father’s income and expense declaration and tax return supported his assertion that he was earning less money than he earned in 2005. The court set Father’s monthly support payment at $447. The court further concluded that Mother agreed to accept $5,000 in exchange for canceling Father’s arrears as of May 17, 2006, and that Mother agreed to accept $400 per month in child support. The court also found that Father had not been paying the $400 per month support that he agreed to pay as part of his agreement with Mother, and found him in arrears of $4,400 for May 2006 through July 2007.
DISCUSSION
At the outset, we note that Mother does not contend that the court erred by lowering Father’s monthly child support payment to $447. Rather, Mother’s argument focuses solely on the court’s determination of Father’s arrears. Mother makes two contentions regarding this point. First, Mother essentially contends there was insufficient evidence that she made a contract with Father to cancel his arrears and set his monthly support payments at $400. Second, Mother essentially contends that to the extent it can be found she entered into such a contract with Father, the court erred by approving the contract because it is not in the best interests of the child. Father did not file a respondent’s brief. We reverse the portions of the trial court’s order concerning Father’s arrearages due to procedural issues.
As to the monthly support payments, the court issued its order without prejudice.
We separate our discussion into two parts. First, we discuss the portion of the trial court’s order reducing Father’s arrears to nothing, i.e., $0, for the support payments owed prior to May 17, 2006. Second, we discuss the portion of the trial court’s order setting Father’s arrears at $4,400, based upon its findings that (1) Mother and Father orally agreed to set Father’s monthly support payments at $400 for the period from May 2006 until July 2007, and (2) that Father had not been making such payments.
“‘[C]hild support awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citations.]’” (County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1445.) “‘“[I]n reviewing child support orders we must . . . recognize that determination of a child support obligation is a highly regulated area of the law, and the only discretion a trial court possesses is the discretion provided by statute or rule. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
1.
REDUCING FATHER’S ARREARS
In regard to canceling Father’s arrears, we conclude the court did not have the authority to take such action. (Fam. Code, § 3651, subd. (c)(1).) The reduction of child support arrearages is statutorily barred. (§ 3651, subd. (c)(1); County of Santa Clara v. Wilson (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1327; In re Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1213-1215 (Sabine & Toshio M.).) “[S]ection 3651(c)(1) precludes a trial court from modifying or forgiving accrued support payments—arrearages.” (Sabine & Toshio M., at p. 1213.) Accordingly, the trial court’s order must be reversed.
All further references to code sections will be to the Family Code unless otherwise noted.
Our opinion in this matter does not mean that parties are precluded from settling disputes regarding the amount of arrearages owed. When a dispute arises regarding an amount due, a party may agree to accept a lesser sum in full satisfaction of the amount in controversy, which would then cancel the amount owed, e.g., Mother claims Father owes $300, but Father claims to owe only $200. (Sabine & Toshio M., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1214-1215.) However, such an agreement, i.e., an accord and satisfaction, “requires the existence of a bona fide dispute concerning the debt.” (Id. at p. 1215.) In this case there was no such dispute. Father did not deny the arrearages or dispute the amount he owed. Quite simply, Father alleged that he offered Mother $5,000 in exchange for canceling the arrearages, which Mother alleged totaled $23,000. We do not see how this resolved a bona fide dispute. (See ibid.) Accordingly, as noted ante, the reduction in arrearages was statutorily barred.
2.
SETTING FATHER’S ARREARS AT $4,400
Parties in a child support case may stipulate to an agreed-upon amount of child support. (§ 4065, subd. (a).) A stipulation for an agreed-upon amount of support is subject to court approval. (§ 4065, subd. (a).) If the parties stipulated amount of support is below the mathematically determined guideline amount of support, then the trial court must make a variety of findings, as required in section 4065, subdivision (a), prior to approving the below guideline amount of support.
At the trial court, Mother did not stipulate to an agreed-upon amount of support. Quite the opposite, Mother argued that she never entered into an agreement with Father regarding his monthly support payment. Despite Mother not stipulating that she agreed to Father paying $400 in monthly support, the court concluded that Mother and Father entered into an agreement to set Father’s monthly support payments at $400.
We note that the guideline amount of support at the most recent hearing was $447, which was lower than Father’s previously determined guideline amount of support. Accordingly, at any point in the proceedings, $400 would have been below the recommended guideline amount of support. Prior to approving an amount of support that falls below the guideline, the trial court must receive a stipulation from the parties for the below guideline amount, which did not occur in this case. Additionally, prior to approving a below guideline amount, the court must make the necessary findings enumerated in section 4065, subdivision (a), which the court did not do in this case. Consequently, we cannot review the trial court’s order for an abuse of discretion, because the trial court did not receive the necessary stipulation nor make the statutorily required findings. Accordingly, the trial court’s order that Father owed $400 per month in support from May 2006 through July 2007, and was in arrears for the amount of $4,400 must be reversed.
DISPOSITION
The portion of the trial court’s order setting Father’s arrearages at $0 as of May 17, 2006, is reversed. The portion of the trial court’s order setting Father’s arrearages at $4,400 for the period from May 2006 through July 2007 is reversed. The trial court is directed to recalculate Father’s arrears. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
We concur: Ramirez, P.J., Richli, J.