Opinion
No. 53965-5-I
Filed: April 18, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 00-3-02998-9. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/20/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Hollis Cay Holman.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Toivo L. Redditt (Appearing Pro Se), Pmb 1623, P.O. Box 257, Olympia, WA 98507-0257.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Michael A. Atkins, Attorney at Law, 3211 California Ave SW, Seattle, WA 98116-3304.
Toivo L. Redditt appeals from the denial of his motion to hold Su N. Lee in contempt for failing to pay child support after their son's 21st birthday in April 2003. Because her obligation to pay child support under the Oregon order terminated on that date, the trial court did not err. We affirm.
Redditt and Lee's marriage was dissolved in Oregon. In 1997, an Oregon court entered a child support order obligating Lee to pay child support until her son turned 21, as long as he was attending school. Redditt moved for a modification of the child support order in Washington in 2000 because both parents and the child by then lived in this state. Among the bases for the modification was the fact that the child would be attending college and thus incurring post-secondary educational expenses. The Washington court modified the order by increasing Lee's support obligation to $500 a month, but did not change the duration of the support obligation.
Lee apparently paid child support as ordered until her child turned 21. In December 2003, Redditt asked the Washington court to hold Lee in contempt for discontinuing her child support payments. He contends that the support obligation should have continued until his son turns 23, as provided for by Washington law. RCW 26.19.090(5). It does not appear that Redditt ever sought modification of the order to allow payments to continue until the child turned 23. The trial court denied his motion because the earlier Washington order modifying the Oregon child support order did not change the age at which Lee's obligation would terminate.
The trial court is correct. As of April 2003, Lee's obligation terminated. Although the Washington court had modified the terms of the Oregon order as to the amount of Lee's child support obligation, it did not modify the duration of the obligation. Thus Lee was not in contempt of the order when she stopped making payments.
Affirmed.
KENNEDY, COLEMAN and COX, JJ.