Stevenson v. Stevenson
Trial court properly ordered retroactive child support where husband failed to make proper financial disclosure.
Roberta Jo W. v. Leroy W.
Court only has authority to create a child support obligation directly in favor of a person who is less than 19 years old and is pursuing a high school diploma at the time the action is commenced.
In Re Paternity of P.J.W.
Child who reaches age of majority does not have cause of action for award or modification of child support.
Marriage of DeLaMatter v. DeLaMatter
At time of divorce, maintenance was $100 per week in temporary order. Decision was not made for 7 months – then maintenance was increased to $300 per week RETROACTIVE to date of divorce. Court of Appeals finds issue moot, since it is remanding for reconsideration of maintenance. But, court notes that certain maintenance orders can be made retroactively under Overson.
In Re Paternity of P.J.W.
Child who reaches age of majority does not have cause of action for award or modification of child support.
In Re Marriage of Harris v. Harris
A nunc pro tunc order can only correct mechanical errors – it cannot award retroactive maintenance.
Overson v. Overson
Where a case has been timely appealed, upon remand, the trial court can retroactively adjust any portion of the original judgment covered by the remand, including considering the effect of the original erroneous order on payments made during the time the case was on appeal.
Marriage of Greenwood v. Greenwood
(1) Court cannot grant child support retroactively. (2) Statute on interest for arrears has retroactive effect.
In Re Marriage of Strawser v. Strawser
Nunc pro tunc orders are only allowed to correct mechanical errors. A court cannot retroactively grant or increase support.
In Re Marriage of Behnke v. Behnke
Legislature can change child support obligations retroactively.
Foregger v. Foregger
Court had no authority to retroactively increase support.