Austin v. Maraziti

Filed 5/8/06 Austin v. Maraziti CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas C. Hendrix, Judge. Affirmed.

In this case the family court denied a father's motion to be given credit against future child support obligations for personal property he had previously provided the children's mother. Because in general a custodial parent's pre-existing debt to a noncustodial parent may not be used to offset the noncustodial parent's child support obligations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father's motion.

SUMMARY

Respondent Amanda Austin and appellant Richard Maraziti had a romantic relationship which apparently ended at some point in 2002. The relationship produced two children.

In April 2002 Maraziti filed a civil action against Austin in which he alleged causes of action for breach of contract, conversion and recovery of a gift.

Austin filed a cross-complaint in which she alleged Maraziti owed her money for work she had performed and for breach of a child support agreement.

In January 2003 Austin executed an agreement with Maraziti which purportedly resolved the civil action. The agreement stated in pertinent part: " Amanda C. Austin has received a couch ensemble with sleeper, entertainment center, bunk beds, small desk and cabinet, chair, large desk and cabinet, file cabinet, armoire, accessory to hold photos, crib with drawer, color television, video recorder and vacuum with a combined value of $4,000.00. In addition Austin has received an approximately one-carat diamond ring with setting with a value of $8,000.00. [¶] . . . As consideration for the above, Austin acknowledges that she has received as and for support the amount of $100 per month for eleven years." Following execution of this agreement the civil action was dismissed.

In June 2003 Austin and Maraziti stipulated to a family court support order which required that Maraziti pay Austin $1,332 per month in child support.

In 2005 Maraziti moved in family court for an order giving him $100 a month credit on his child support obligation. He argued that by way of the settlement agreement Austin acknowledged that the items she received did in fact provide support for her children. Austin opposed the motion. She submitted a declaration in which she stated that at the time she signed the agreement with Maraziti she was seven months pregnant with Maraziti's second child and wanted the discovery Maraziti was pursuing to cease. She also stated in her declaration that she no longer possessed many of the items set forth in the agreement and that the values assigned to the items were their respective purchase prices as opposed to their value at the time of the agreement. The family court denied the motion and Maraziti filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

I

At the outset it is important to recognize that in general parents are permitted to reach stipulated child support agreements. However, such agreements must be approved by the family court and the family court cannot approve agreements which provide support less than the guideline amount set forth in Family Code^[1] section 4055 unless the family court makes specific findings, including a finding that " [t]he needs of the children will be adequately met by the stipulated amount." (§ 4065, subd. (a)(4).) The agreement which Maraziti and Austin reached in the civil action was not approved by the family court and hence did not meet the requirements of section 4065. Thus Maraziti does not and cannot argue the agreement itself requires any reduction in his support obligation.

II

Maraziti argues that apart from the settlement agreement he should be given credit for the value of the items he provided Austin prior to the time their relationship ended. There is no basis for such a credit.

We begin with the fundamental and well-established principle that the child support obligation is owed to the child, not the parent who receives child support payments. (See In re Marriage of Armato (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1039; Williams v. Williams (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 636, 639; In re Marriage of Stutz (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1041-1042.) Thus, " a child support obligation cannot be satisfied through the obligor parent's performance of an entirely different (independent) obligation." (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group) ¶6:628, p. 6-242 (rev. #1, 2005).) In In re Marriage of Armato the obligor parent, the father, attempted to reduce his child support obligation on the grounds that he had assumed a business debt of the supported parent and the debt turned out to be far larger and more onerous than the parties had expected. The court rejected the father's attempt to get a credit against his child support obligation for the business loss, noting that the child support obligation is owed to the child not the parent. (In re Marriage of Armato, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1039.) In Williams v. Williams the court rejected a similar attempt to reduce a support obligation by the amount the supporting parent had advanced in maintaining an investment the parties jointly owned. (Williams v. Williams, supra, 8 Cal.App.3d at pp. 639-640.) In In re Marriage of Stutz the court refused to give a supporting spouse credit for mortgage payments which were required as part of the parties' property distribution. (In re Marriage of Stutz, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1041-1042.)

Here the family court found " that the furniture and ring [Austin] was allowed to keep and the agreement to offset the value of those items as credit towards [Maraziti's] future child support obligations were all part of the settlement of the civil lawsuit." This finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, including in particular in the parties' agreement. Thus the offset Maraziti is pursuing is in fact credit for an independent debt owed by Austin. Under In re Marriage of Armato, Williams v. Williams and In re Marriage of Stutz, such an offset is not permissible.^[2]

Order affirmed. Respondent to recover her costs of appeal.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

IRION, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise specified.

^[2] Because we have resolved the appeal on the grounds that the offset Maraziti asserts is an impermissible attempt to receive credit for a independent debt, we need not and do not reach the separate issue of whether child support can be satisfied with personal property rather than the payment of money.