Dandona v. Araluce

Opinion

GILBERT, P. J. Under Family Code section 3653 a party who makes overpayments of support may obtain reimbursement. We conclude that retroactive application of section 3653 is constitutional.1

Jean Marie Dandona appeals a modification order requiring her to reimburse William Araluce for child and spousal support overpayments he made to her over a 14-month period, beginning February 1, 1999.2 We conclude that the trial court’s retroactive application of section 3653 is consistent with legislative intent and does not impair Jean’s contractual rights or violate her right to due process of law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering reimbursement retroactive to the filing of William’s motion for modification. We affirm.

[1123]Facts

A judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporating the marital settlement agreement ordered William to pay child and spousal support to Jean. On January 28, 1999, William filed a motion to modify child support and terminate Jean’s spousal support.

Jean responded, stating her annual income was $60,294, net monthly disposable income was $4,146.50, and she had over $382,000 in financial resources. William stated his annual income was $57,882.25 and his net monthly disposable income was $3,614.52. Jean’s annual salary increased to $71,472 in April 1999.

Effective January 2000, under amended section 3653, support obligors may obtain reimbursement for overpayments of support. The court granted William’s motion on March 23, 2000.

The court reduced Jean’s spousal support from $304 per month to zero effective February 1, 1999, and child support from $1,758 per month to $1,277 effective February 1, 1999. It found that, while William’s motion was pending, he overpaid Jean $6,734 for child support and $4,256 for spousal support over a period of 14 months, including 11 months in 1999 and January through March of 2000. It ordered Jean to repay William the overpayment of $10,990.

Discussion

I. Section 3653 is retroactive

Jean contends that the trial court erred by retroactively applying section 3653, subdivision (c) to require her to reimburse William for his 1999 overpayments.