Matar and Harake

A stipulated dissolution judgment preventing the parties from seeking modification of child support payments is enforceable, if the surrounding circumstances do not violate public policy.

The parties were divorced and stipulated a general judgment of dissolution, which required the father to pay child support with the provision that neither party would seek to modify the support obligation. The father later filed a motion seeking a reduction of the amount of child support based upon a reduction in his monthly income. The trial court found that he had provided proof of a substantial change due to the reduction of his income, but concluded that the provision of the stipulated agreement prohibiting the parties from requesting changes in child support was enforceable and did not violate public policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and held that the enforcement of the stipulated agreement was not contrary to law or public policy based upon the circumstances of the case; however, this outcome is not meant to be construed as a blanket-policy covering all stipulated agreements.