Does Utah's automatic adjustment statute apply to older child support orders? Johansen v. Johansen Explained

Utah’s Automatic Adjustment Statute provides for automatic reduction of child support when children reach eighteen or graduate from high school. But what happens when the original divorce decree predated the statute and lacks specific per-child amounts? The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this question in Johansen v. Johansen, clarifying the retroactive application of the adjustment statute.

Background and Facts

Paul and Kathryn Johansen divorced in January 1989, with Paul ordered to pay $540 monthly in child support for three children. The decree did not address changes when children became emancipated. Two daughters reached eighteen in 1995 and 1997, but the Office of Recovery Services continued collecting the full amount. In 2000, Paul petitioned for retroactive modification of his support obligation. The trial court denied his motion, concluding that Utah Code § 78-45-7.10 could not apply retroactively to pre-existing orders.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: whether the Automatic Adjustment Statute applies retroactively to support orders predating the statute, and whether calculation is possible when the original decree lacks per-child amounts or specified parental incomes. The case required analysis of statutory interpretation and the procedural versus substantive nature of the adjustment provisions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court ruled that the Automatic Adjustment Statute is procedural rather than substantive because no one has vested rights in future, unaccrued child support payments. Since the statute became effective in 1989 before the children reached eighteen, it could apply retroactively without destroying vested rights. The court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that calculation was “impossible” without per-child amounts, noting that the statute’s plain language requires automatic reduction unless the original order provides otherwise. The 2000 amendment specifically addresses missing income information by allowing parties to submit tax returns or other verification.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that practitioners can seek retroactive application of the Automatic Adjustment Statute even for older divorce decrees. The ruling establishes that current guideline tables should be used for calculations, giving effect to the Legislature’s omission of a specific year reference. However, practitioners should note Judge Greenwood’s dissent, which argued that retroactive modification should be limited by Utah’s general prohibition against retroactive support modifications except from the date of petition filing.