WPC omz BȤn~ci;[b&43㟴wJbIsXTS9p6@1 #"kHԀ0X;3AX~zxH_[eDͣ#PVPѼ.:;9m.ɺ 󫯩07cZgX.Iub6rl/:8hXnbEV|NMN3t(De^F&‰6IfZ3 !tF9B\_i,n9~iXwYd=u G™̱?X0V[AE^KuKxr =ύ HV51'B:'2}XzLv 펵];}\! #BJRT0Z3J[R5Ju.Jeۿx›PYtj op|L_(YI'QXΙ# F UNQ % 0( w@ 4 ! 0 UN8 0l 0D 6  u")U:KKKKKKKKKKKKK B D3 0D AOhh 0D. D/r BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ D  V U  {  D  ӀRC&3|x 'r Z 6Times New Roman Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0     $    1    Accord InreRoot ,774S.W.2d521,52526(Mo.Ct.App.1989)(determiningthat   [t]heholdingin Greene ...didnotrestonthenarrowgroundthattheagencysrightsunderthe  mothersassignmentcouldnotbeimpairedbyhersubsequentremarriagetothefather... Greene squarelyheldthatthepartiesremarriagedidnotnullifytheclaimforaccrued  installmentsofchildsupport.); seealsoGriffisv.Griffis ,503S.E.2d516,526(1988).   $    2    SeeGriffisv.Griffis ,503S.E.2d516,524(W.Va.1998)(holdingthatcohabitation  withoutremarriagedoesnotautomaticallynullifyanexistingcourtorderonchildsupport).  $    3    ݀ SeeScheibelv.Scheibel ,284N.W.2d572,573(Neb.1979).   $    2    SeeGriffisv.Griffis ,503S.E.2d516,524(W.Va.1998)(holdingthatcohabitation  withoutremarriagedoesnotautomaticallynullifyanexistingcourtorderonchildsupport).  $    3    ݀ SeeScheibelv.Scheibel ,284N.W.2d572,573(Neb.1979). XXXX#XX   Ad FILED #   February24,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.  AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !   TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7  X"XXX r*<,(j 8 `@E tt0"Hrߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE    @$ATKNOXVILLE     `  򀀀  KATHIELYNNPASS,   h   )   p  L      `     h   )  8    Plaintiff/Appellant,   h   )  BlountCircuitNo.7845 $ t     `     h   )    p   d  v.   `     h   )    P     `     h   )  AppealNo.03A019710CV00493   <  LEEROYPASS,    h   )   ,     `     h   )  Defendant/Appellee.   h   )      @X X  APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFBLOUNTCOUNTY T @ATMARYVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEW.DALEYOUNG,JUDGE T ForthePlaintiff/Appellant:   h   FortheDefendant/Appellee:  LanceA.Evans    h   CharlesDungan  Maryville,Tennessee    h   Maryville,Tennessee  Ѐ    `     h   REVERSEDANDREMANDED   `     h   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. '#& CONCURS:ALANE.HIGHERS,J. L-(, DAVIDR.FARMER,J.#XXX X"#  0L,0 7XXdXXd7  @55' OPINION       ThisisanactiontocollectchildsupportarrearagesinvolvinganissueoffirstimpressioninTennessee.Thepartiesdivorced,remarried,anddivorcedasecondtime.Thewifeseekstocollectchildsupportwhichaccruedafterthefirstdivorceandpriortotheparties𛀜remarriage.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheremarriageofthepartiesrenderedthepriordivorcedecreevoidwithregardtochildsupportanddismissedthewifesmotiontocollectthearrearage.Wereverse,holdingthatclaimsforarrearageswhichaccruedafterthefirstdivorceandpriortotheremarriagearenotbarredasamatteroflaw.  KathieLynnPass( Wife)andLeeRoyPass( Husband)weremarriedonMarch2,1979.ϜThepartiesdivorcedforthefirsttimeonAugust31,1984.ThefinaldecreeofdivorcegrantedcustodyofthecoupleschildtoWifeandrequiredHusbandtopaychildsupportof$40perweekuntilAugust1,1985,whentheweeklyamountincreasedto$50.Husbandfailedtopaytherequiredchildsupport.OnApril20,1993,WifereceivedadefaultjudgmentagainstHusbandintheamountof$21,000forunpaidchildsupport.Byagreementoftheparties,thisjudgmentwasvacatedonJune14,1993.ThepartiesremarriedonNovember4,1994.TheydivorcedforthesecondtimeonSeptember20,1996.  Inamotionfiledaftertheseconddivorce,Wifesoughttocollectarrearagesinchildsupportwhichaccruedafterthefirstdivorceandpriortotheremarriage,andexcludingtheperiodoftimeinwhichthepartiescohabitatedpriortotheremarriage.Thetrialcourtdismissedthemotion,holding thattheremarriageofthepartiesannulledandrenderedvoidthepriorjudgmentofdivorceinsofarasthecustodyandsupportoftheminorchildisconcerned.Fromthisdecision,Wifenowappeals.  Onappeal,bothpartiesassertthattherearenocontrollingTennesseedecisionsonthisissue.Bothcitecaselawfromotherstatesinsupportoftheirpositions.  Thisappealinvolvesonlyaquestionoflaw;therearenodisputedfactspertinenttotheissuebroughtbeforethisCourt.Consequently,wereviewthetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawdenovo, 3.2 withnopresumptionofcorrectness. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). p504   In Watkinsv.Watkins ,1998WL704516(Tenn.App.1998),thisCourtaddressedtheeffect P726 ofremarriageonacustodyprovisioninapriordivorcedecree.Thefactsin Watkins arequite 0948 complicatedandinvolvedseveralstates;however,thefactspertinenttothiscasewillbebriefly ;`6: outlined.Thepartiesin Watkins marriedinDecember1984,andinJanuary1990,thehusband  obtainedanexpartedivorcedecreeandwasawardedcustodyofthepartiestwochildren. Watkins ,  1998WL704516,at*1.Laterthatsameyear,thepartiesremarried. Id. However,inFebruary p 1991,thewifefiledforaseconddivorce,andthecourtenteredadivorcedecreegrantinghercustodyofthechildren. Id. at*1*2.Subsequently,thehusbandattemptedtoenforcethefirstdivorce 0  decreewhichgrantedhimcustodyofthechildren. Id. at*3.ThisCourtheldthattheremarriageof `  thepartiesrenderedthepriorcustodydecreevoidandunenforceable,inlinewiththemajorityofjurisdictionsthathadconsideredtheissue. Id. at*5(citing ExpartePhillips ,95So.2d77(Ala.   1957); Oliphantv.Oliphant ,7S.W.2d783(Ark.1928); Warrenv.Warren ,97S.E.2d349(Ga.  1957); InreParks ,630N.E.2d509(Ill.App.1994); Raschv.Rasch ,168So.2d738(Miss.1964).    Likewise,mostcourtsthathaveconsideredtheissueholdthattheremarriageofthepartiesrendersthechildsupportprovisionsoftheinitialdivorcedecreevoidandunenforceable,atleastprospectivelyfromthedateoftheremarriage. SeeDavisv.Davis ,437P.2d502,503(Cal.1968) 0 ( [T]heruleasdevelopedinotherjurisdictionsisthatifthepartiesagainintermarrychildcustodyandsupportordersasbetweenthemselvesarethereuponterminated,aswellasthejurisdictionofthecourttoenforcesuchorders,andthatthisistruewhetherornottheparentssubsequentlydivorceagain.); InreDoria ,855P.2d28,2930(Colo.Ct.App.1993)( Asageneralrule,whentheparties "  toadivorceremarryeachother,thecourtsjurisdictionoverthepartiesisterminatedandtheprovisionsofthepriordecreeformattersofchildsupport,custody,andmaintenancearenullified.);  p&!$ Warrenv.Warren ,97S.E.2d349,350(Ga.1957)( Theremarriageofthepartiesnullifiedthe P(#& [divorce]decree...andrestoredtheparentalrightsofthepartiestothesameextentasifnodivorcehadeverbeengranted.); InreRoot ,774S.W.2d521,523(Mo.App.1989)( Itwouldbeabsurd ,`'* toholdthatonceparentsremarryeachotherandthefamilyisagainintactandresidinginthesamehousehold,theformernoncustodialparentmustpayfutureinstallmentsofchildsupporttotheotherparentperthepastdivorcedecree.); Schaffv.Schaff ,446N.W.2d28,31(N.D.1989) 1-0 ( Accordingly,weholdthatwhenparentsofachildbornoutofwedlockmarryeachother,thechildcustodyandfuturesupportprovisionsofthepaternityjudgmentarenullifiedandreplacedbythelawgoverningtherightsandobligationsofmarriedparentstotheirchildren.); Thomasv.Thomas ,565 P726 P.2d722,724(Okla.App.1976)( Oncethepartiesremarrythejurisdictionofthecourtwithrespect 0948 tomaintenanceoftheirchildrenterminatesbecausethedivorceisannulledandtherightsanddutiesofthepartieswithregardtotheirchildrenareasiftheyhadneverbeendivorced.).  However,inthiscase,Wifeseekschildsupportpaymentswhichaccruedpriortotheparties p remarriage,andexcludingtheperiodofcohabitation.ThisisanissueoffirstimpressioninTennessee.However,theissuehasbeenaddressedinanumberofotherjurisdictions.  Aminorityofcourtshaveheldthatchildsupportarrearageswhichaccruedafterthefirstdivorceandpriortoremarriagemaynotbecollected.In Ringstromv.Ringstrom ,428N.E.2d743, @  744(Ill.App.Ct.1981),thecourtheldthataremarriagevoidsthepriordivorcedecree. Ringstrom    reasonedthatthecourtlackedjurisdictiontoreexaminethepriordivorcedecreeafterthepartiesremarriage;thereforeanyclaimbasedonapriordivorcedecreebecamebarredoncethepartiesϜremarried. Ringstrom ,428N.E.2dat746.Likewise,in Palacciv.Palacci ,613A.2d951,953(Ill. p App.1981),thecourtheldthatarrearageswhichaccruedafterthefirstdivorceandpriortoremarriagemaynotbecollected,reasoningthat onremarriage,apriororderofchildsupportbecomesunenforceable.  However,amajorityofcourtsconsideringtheissuehavereachedacontraryresult.TheSupremeCourtofNebraskain Scheibelv.Scheibel ,284N.W.2d572,573(Neb.1979),addressed   theissueofwhethertheremarriageofthepartiesbarredanactiontocollectchildsupportwhichaccruedduringtheperiodoftimebetweenthefirstdivorcedecreeandtheremarriage.The Scheibel  $" courtheldthatremarriagedidnotbaraclaimtocollectchildsupportarrearageswhichaccruedbeforetheremarriage. Scheibel ,284N.W.2dat573.Inaddition,thehusbandassertedtheequitable P(#& defenseoflachesinanattempttobarthewifesclaim. Id. at573.Inresponse,thecourtheld,in 0*%( part:Intheabsenceofanyevidencewhateverthattheappellantwasmateriallyprejudicedbythedelayintheassertionoftheclaimforsupport,wedeclinetoholdthattheremarriageofthepartieswilloperateasamatteroflawtoprohibitthepartyforwhosebenefitthesupportwasorderedfrominstituting[an]actiontocollectthearrearages.,,, Id. 3.2    TheSupremeCourtofAppealsofWestVirginiain Griffisv.Griffis ,503S.E.2d516,528 p504 (W.Va.1998),reviewedindetaildecisionsfromotherstatesaddressingtheissueandnotedthatthemajorityheldthattheremarriageofthepartiesdoesnotasamatteroflawbaraclaimforchild 0948 supportarrearageswhichaccruedpriortoremarriage.Relyingontheseauthorities,the Griffis court  heldthatwhenadivorcedecreeordersoneparenttopaychildsupporttotheother,andtheobligorparentfailstomakepayments,thenaremarriageofthepartiesdoesnotnullifythearrearageswhichaccumulatedpriortotheremarriage. Griffis ,503S.E.at528.The Griffis courtreliedinparton P  WestVirginiacaselawwhichprohibitedcourtsinWestVirginiafrommodifyingandcancelingaccruedchildsupport,onthebasisthatsuchpaymentsvestastheyaccrue. Id.seealsoVailv.Vail , `  240N.E.2d519,520(Ill.App.Ct.1968); Wrenv.Wren ,127N.W.2d643,646(Iowa1964). @    TheIowaSupremeCourtin Greenev.IowaDist.Court ,312N.W.2d915,917(Iowa1981),   addressedtheissueofamotherseekingtorecoverchildsupportwhichaccruedbetweenthedivorceandremarriage.Thecourtconcludedthateachinstallmentofchildsupportbecomesamoneyjudgmentwhendue. Greene ,312N.W.2dat918.Thus,accruedinstallmentsbecomethevested p rightofthespouseentitledtothechildsupportpayments. Id.  P   Greene involvedanadditionalelement.Themotherin Greene hadassignedherrighttothe 0 supportpaymentstotheIowaDepartmentofSocialServices,inexchangeforwelfarebenefits. Id.  ` at916. Greene heldthat [a]ccruedinstallmentsthusbecomethevestedrightofthespouseentitled @ tothesupportandmaynotbetakenaway. Id. at918(citing InreEvans ,267N.W.2d48,52   (1978)). Greene recognizedthegeneralprinciplethataccruedchildsupportpaymentsare "  enforceablejudgmentsandcannotbeextinguishedbyasubsequentremarriage. Id. Itsholdingwas $" notlimitedtotheparticularfactsinthatcase,inwhichanassignmentofchildsupportpaymentswasmadetoastateagency.   #  1      כ P(#&   Likewise,theMissouriCourtofAppealsinthecaseof InreRoot ,774S.W.2d521(Mo.Ct. 0*%( App.1989),heldthatthemotherwasnotbarredfromcollectingchildsupportwhichaccruedpriortotheremarriageoftheparties.Thecourtthoroughlyanalyzedtheissueandreviewedcasesespousingboththemajorityandminorityview. InreRoot ,774S.W.2dat524527.The Root court / +. didnotfollow Ringstrom andheldthattheremarriageofthepartiesfailedtodischargehusbandfor 1-0 childsupportarrearageswhichaccruedbetweenthedivorceandsubsequentremarriage. Id. at526. 3.2 Insofinding,thecourtfoundthatthecasesof Scheibel and Greene tobe betterreasonedthan   Ringstrom . Id. at527.    TheCourtofCivilAppealsofAlabamaaddressedthisissuein Hardyv.Hardy ,600So.2d p 1013(Ala.Civ.App.1992).TheAlabamacourtheldthatclaimsforchildsupportpaymentsbecomefinaljudgmentswhendueand [a]trialcourtmaynotmodify,release,ordischargetheobligorofpastduechildsupportoncetheobligationmaturesandbecomesfinalundertheoriginaldivorcedecree. Hardyv.Hardy ,600So.2dat1015. @    Thus,themajorityofcourtsfromotherjurisdictionsthathaveconsideredtheissueinthiscaseholdthatchildsupportarrearageswhichaccrueafterthefirstdivorceandpriortoremarriagearenot,asamatteroflaw,barredbythepartiesremarriage.SupportforthisviewisfoundinTennesseelawregardingchildsupportarrearages.TennesseeCodeAnnotated365101(a)(5)providesinpertinentpart:Anyorderforchildsupportshallbeajudgmententitledtobeenforcedasanyotherjudgmentofacourtofthisstateandshallbeentitledtofullfaithandcreditinthisstateandinanyotherstate.Suchjudgmentshallnotbesubjecttomodificationastoanytimeperiodoranyamountsduepriortothedatethatanactionformodificationisfiled....Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(5)(Supp.1998).  TheTennesseeSupremeCourtin Rutledgev.Barrett ,802S.W.2d604(Tenn.1991), "  addressedtheissueofretroactivemodificationofachildsupportorder.Inthiscase,themother,in1975,securedachildsupportorderwhichrequiredthefathertopayonehalfofhisincometothecourtclerkforthesupportofhisminorchildren. Rutledge ,802S.W.2dat605.InMarch1988,the P(#& mothersoughtacontemptorderagainstthefatherandajudgmentfor$33,555inchildsupportarrearages. Id. Thetrialcourtheldthefatherincontemptofcourtandorderedhimtopay$27,100 ,`'* inarrearages. Id. Thetrialcourtreducedtheamountofarrearagebecausethefatherwas -@), unemployedforaperiodoftimeandthedecreerequiredthefathertopayapercentageofhisincome. Id. Onappeal,thefathersoughtadditionalmodificationofthetrialcourtsorderandraisedvarious 1-0 equitabledefenses. Id. 󀀀CitingTennesseeCodeAnnotated365101,theCourtheldthattheorder 3.2 ofchildsupportwasnotsubjecttoretroactivemodificationandthattraditionalequitabledefensescouldnotberaisedagainstthe1988judgment. Id. at607.TheCourtnotedthat [t]helegislative P726 historyofthisamendmentreflectstheGeneralAssemblysclearunderstandingthatasaresultofthe  0948 Ї legislativeactiontobringTennesseelawinlinewiththefederalrequirement,thecourtsofthisstatewouldlosetheirabilitytoforgivepastarrearagesinchildsupportcases.... Id. at606.TheCourt p indicatedthatthestatuteprohibitedretroactivemodificationofchildsupportorders. Id. seealso P  Exrel.McAllisterv.Goode ,968S.W.2d834(Tenn.App.1997); Brownv.Heggie ,876S.W.2d98 0  (Tenn.App.1993).  Asnotedabove,othercourtsholdingthatclaimsforchildsupportarrearageswhichaccruedafterthefirstdivorceandpriortoremarriagearenotautomaticallybarredbythepartiesremarriagehavereliedinpartonpriorcaselawholdingthataccruedchildsupportarrearagesmaynotberetroactivelymodifiedorcanceled. See 󛀜 Vail  ,240N.E.2dat520; Wren  ,127N.W.2at646; Griffis    v.  Griffis ,  503S.E.2dat528.  Basedonthereasoninginthecasesespousingthemajorityview,aswellasTennesseelawproscribingtheretroactivemodificationorforgivenessofaccruedchildsupportarrearages,weholdthatclaimsforchildsupportarrearagesbasedonthepartiesfirstdivorcedecree,whichaccruepriortothepartiesremarriage,arenotasamatteroflawbarredbytheirremarriage.SinceWifeinthiscasedidnotseekarrearagesfortheperiodinwhichthepartiescohabitatedpriortoremarriage,wedonotaddresswhetherarrearagesforthattimeperiodarebarredasamatteroflaw.     #  2      כThetrialcourt "  inthiscaseruledthatWifesclaimswerebarredasamatteroflawand,consequentlydidnotaddresspossibledefensessuchaslacheswhichcouldberaisedbyHusband.Therefore,inthiscase,wedonotaddresssuchpossibledefenses. p p  #  3      ל Moreover,thetrialcourtdidnotaddress  teh   the    effectofthe P(#& judgmentforchildsupportarrearagesbeingvacatedpriortothepartiesremarriage,andconsequentlywedonotaddressthatissue. 񛀛 Therefore,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecauseremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisOpinion.̜  / +.    Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecauseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisOpinion.CostsaretaxedtotheAppellee,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary. XuXXX   `     h 򀀀 0     `     h HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. X     CONCUR:򀀀   ALANE.HIGHERS,J.   򀀀 T  DAVIDR.FARMER,J.  @ #XXX XuT#