Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Gaddie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 676
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CA10-258
No.
Opinion Delivered
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT
APPELLANT
OCTOBER 6, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-08-1059-4]
V.
HONORABLE LEON N. JAMISON,
JUDGE
REGINALD GADDIE
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
Appellant Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) appeals from a
Jefferson County Circuit Court order filed on December 7, 2009, which granted the motion
to dismiss of appellee Reginald Gaddie. A timely notice of appeal was filed on December 23,
2009. OCSE argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously applied the general Arkansas
child-support statute of limitations, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-236 (Repl. 2008),
instead of the more specific Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) statute, Arkansas
Code Annotated section 9-17-604 (Repl. 2008), thereby preventing registration of a childsupport order for the purpose of enforcement and collection of arrears. We find merit in
OCSE’s argument and reverse.
-1-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 676
OCSE received a request from the State of California to register two foreign orders and
to enforce the arrears that accompanied the orders. The first order was an interlocutory
judgment of dissolution of marriage filed on April 4, 1979, where Lisa Gaddie (now Brown)
was awarded custody of the parties’ minor child, Vashti E. Gaddie, born August 6, 1976, and
Reginald Gaddie was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $75.00 per month. The
second order was an order after a hearing filed on November 19, 2007, where a judgment for
past-due arrears was entered for $6,915.71, with interest, and he was ordered to pay $200.00
per month to retire the arrears. In response to the request, OCSE filed a petition to register
child-support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act on July 17, 2008.1
In the petition, it was requested that the accompanying order be given full faith and credit.
On October 13, 2008, the California, Sonoma County, Department of Child Support
Services submitted a second enforcement transmittal to OCSE: 1) to state that Ms. Brown
requested that the non-welfare portion of the arrears be dismissed; and 2) to update the child
support owed to $7,202.08. OCSE filed an amended petition to reflect the changes and again
stated that it was requesting that the attached order be given full faith and credit. Appellee
filed a general denial answer to both petitions and requested an immediate hearing.
Thereafter, appellee filed a motion to dismiss arguing only that Arkansas Code Annotated
section 9-14-236(c) barred the collection of arrears beyond the five-year statute of limitations,
which meant that as Vashti Gaddie reached the age of eighteen on August 7, 1994, any
1
Lisa Brown was named as the petitioner in the first petition. In subsequent pleadings,
OCSE is named as the petitioner, and Lisa Brown is named as an OCSE assignor.
-22
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 676
collection for arrears was barred after 1999. In response, OCSE only claimed that the action
was not barred because Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-17-604(b) and Clemmons v. State,
345 Ark. 330, 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001), allowed the collection of child-support arrears until
they were paid in full because California law was governing. On August 27, 2009, a hearing
was held and the following pertinent colloquy took place:
THE COURT: Why shouldn’t I dismiss this case, Mr. Short?
MR . SHORT: [T]he defendant’s basis for challenging the registration is using
Arkansas law which limits when a judgment can be granted. In this case,
Clemmons v. OCSE, which was a decision entered in 2001 states that the
applicable statute of limitations is the longer of the statute of limitations under
Arkansas law or the state issuing the support order.
In this case, it was the state of California that entered the order. And
Clemmon v. OCSE specifically addressed California law. In that case, it found
that California Family Code Section 4502 was applicable under 291(a). 291(a)
states that a money judgment or judgment for possession or sale of property
does–made or entered under this code including a judgment for a child, family
or spousal support is enforceable until paid in full or otherwise satisfied.
In this case, November 19th of 2007, the California court entered an
order finding the defendant was in arrears and that he should continue making
payments in the amount of $200 monthly. Again . . . since the law is that it’s
the longer of the two state statutes regarding statute of limitation . . . California
law does not have a limitation on their statute.
THE COURT: [T]here are two issues here. Number one is when should the
action be filed in order to collect the amount of child support owed.
[S]econdly, what is the statute of limitation with regard to the amount of
arrears that can be collected. And I believe with regard to your argument...
supports the amount of arrears that can be collected. [A]rkansas law controls
with regard to when the action should be filed in this state. The action was
filed way after this child turned 23 years of age. . . . I’m going to find that this
action is barred by the statute of limitation.
The following order, in relevant part, was entered.
-33
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 676
2. That on July 17, 2007[sic] plaintiff filed a petition to register child support
order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act seeking to
register an order of support entered by the Superior Court of California,
Sonoma County, on April 4, 1979.
3. That defendant was ordered to pay support for his daughter born on
August 7, 1976 and who attained the age of 32 years before the filing of the
present action.
4. That Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-23(c) imposes a five (5) [year]
statutory limitation period on collection of arreared child support and the
Court finds the present action is barred by said statute.
5. That plaintiff should have filed such action within five (5) years of the
minor child at issue attaining the age of 18 years or by the time such child was
23 years of age.
6. That such child would have attained the age of 23 years on August 7, 1999,
and this action was not filed until more than nine (9) years after such child
attained age 23.
A trial court’s ruling on child support issues is reviewed de novo by this court, and the
trial court’s findings are not disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. State of Arkansas
Child Support Enforcement v. Adams, 94 Ark. App. 236, 228 S.W.3d 555 (2006); Allen v. Allen,
82 Ark. App. 42, 110 S.W.3d 772 (2003). However, a trial court’s conclusion of law is given
no deference on appeal. Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 769 (2005); Hollingsworth
v. Hollingsworth, 2010 Ark. App. 101, ___ S.W.3d ___.
OCSE argues on appeal that the trial court applied the incorrect statute of limitation
and that the trial court failed to give full faith and credit to the California judgment entered
on November 19, 2007. As the colloquy above and OCSE’s response to the motion to
dismiss reveal, counsel for OCSE argued the statute of limitation as regarding the collection
of the arrearages. He did not specifically request the trial court to give full faith and credit
-44
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 676
to the judgment.2 McWhorter v. McWhorter, 2009 Ark. 458, ___ S.W.3d ___ ( when a general
argument was made to the trial court, this court will not consider specific arguments raised
for the first time on appeal and will not consider arguments when a party has failed to obtain
a ruling from the trial court). The burden was on OCSE to bring this issue to the trial
judge’s attention and to obtain a ruling, and as the order does not address full faith and credit,
we are deprived of the opportunity to review it on appeal. Turley v. Staley, 2009 Ark. App.
840, ___ S.W.3d ___; Office of Child Support Enforcement v. House, 320 Ark. 423, 897 S.W.2d
565 (1995).
OCSE’s assertion that the trial court applied the incorrect statute of limitation has
been preserved. Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-17-601 (Repl. 2008), a support
order issued by a tribunal of another state may be registered in this state for enforcement.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-17-604(b) (Repl. 2008) states that in a proceeding for
arrearages, the statute of limitation under the laws of this state or of the issuing state,
whichever is longer, applies. The statute of limitation in Arkansas is five years, which permits
the recovery of child support arrearage until the child for whom support has been ordered
reaches the age of twenty-three. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-236 (Repl. 2008).
2
We explained the difference between an action to collect accrued child support
arreageages and an action to enforce a judgment in Johns v. Johns, 103 Ark. App. 55, 286
S.W.3d 189 (2008). A foreign judgment based upon child-support arrearages is entitled to
full faith and credit and is as conclusive on collateral attack as a domestic judgment, absent
fraud in the procurement or lack of jurisdiction in the rendering court. Durham v. Ark. Dep’t
Human of Servs./Child Support Enforcement Unit, 322 Ark. 789, 912 S.W.2d 412 (1995).
-55
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 676
Since 1993, under California law, a judgment for child support is enforceable until paid in
full. California Family Code sections 4502 and 291; In re Marriage of Tavares, 60 Cal. Rptr.
3d 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). Therefore, at the time this action was filed, California law
governed the limitation period. It was error for the trial court to grant the motion to dismiss
based upon Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-236(c), and we reverse and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
G RUBER and H ENRY, JJ., agree.
-66
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
