Kyei v. Div. of Child Support , 314 Or. App. 517 ( 2021 )

517
Submitted July 2, affirmed September 15, petition for review denied
December 23, 2021 (369 Or 110)
Kofi Adomako Ohene KYEI,
Petitioner,
v.
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT,
Respondent.
Office of Administrative Hearings
2019CSP25531; A172588
499 P3d 137
Petitioner seeks judicial review of the final order of an administrative law
judge (ALJ) affirming petitioner’s driver’s license suspensions as a result of his
child support arrearage. Primarily, he argues that a 2013 order related to prior
license suspensions precluded both a subsequent enforcement judgment for child
support, a matter which is subject to another appeal (A169234), and the license
suspension at issue in this appeal. That subsequent enforcement judgment has
not been stayed and determined the 2013 order did not preclude subsequent
enforcement. Held: The ALJ did not err in determining that petitioner remained
subject to the relevant enforcement judgment and that his child support arrear-
age exceeded three months of support or $2,500. Accordingly, the ALJ did not
lack substantial evidence or reason in reaching her conclusions leading to the
suspension of petitioner’s license. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s
remaining points of error without discussion.
Affirmed.
Kofi O. Kyei filed the briefs pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
DeVORE, P. J.
Affirmed.
518 Kyei v. Div. of Child Support
DeVORE, P. J.
Petitioner seeks judicial review of the final order
of an administrative law judge (ALJ) affirming petitioner’s
driver’s license suspensions as a result of his child support
arrearage. See ORS 25.750 (occupational or professional
licenses subject to suspension upon specified conditions);
ORS 25.759 (only three bases for contesting suspension).
On appeal, petitioner asserts a nine-point assignment of
error. Primarily, he argues that a 2013 order related to prior
license suspensions, which was entered in an earlier case in
Multnomah County Circuit Court, precluded both a subse-
quent enforcement judgment for child support in Clackamas
County Circuit Court, a matter which is subject to another
appeal, and also the license suspension at issue in this par-
ticular appeal. Petitioner also argues that the ALJ incor-
rectly calculated the amount of his child support arrearage.
On judicial review, we review for errors of law and
for substantial evidence and reason. ORS 183.482(8); Endres
v. DMV, 255 Or App 226, 228-29, 297 P3d 505 (2013). This
is not a case in which we could or would accept petitioner’s
request for de novo review. See ORS 183.482(8)(a) - (c) (stan-
dards of review of agency action do not include de novo
review); ORS 19.415(3)(b) (authorizing de novo review of an
“equitable action or proceeding”). We address petitioner’s
leading arguments without a summary of facts or descrip-
tion of the several proceedings because doing so would be
of no benefit to bench, bar, parties, or the public. We reject
petitioner’s other issues without discussion. We affirm.
Under ORS 25.759(5), the only three permissible
bases for contesting the decision to suspend a license are
(1) that the arrearage is not greater than three months sup-
port or $2,500; (2) that there is a mistake in the identity
of the obligor; or (3) that the person has complied with an
arrearage agreement described in statute or a subpoena at
issue. The latter two grounds do not apply here. The first
ground is at issue insofar as petitioner disputes the arrear-
age and the authority of the Clackamas County Circuit
Court or the Clackamas County District Attorney to deter-
mine an arrearage or to act on the arrearage by suspending
a license.
Cite as 314 Or App 517 (2021) 519
We conclude that the 2013 proceedings in the
Multnomah case did not preclude the license suspension in this
case.1 After those Multnomah proceedings, the Clackamas
County Circuit Court entered a subsequent judgment in
2018, rejecting petitioner’s challenges to subsequent child
support enforcement orders and determining that the 2013
Multnomah proceedings did not end petitioner’s child sup-
port, nor preclude future support efforts. The enforcement
of that Clackamas judgment was not stayed and is subject
to a separate appeal, still pending. Because that judgment
was not stayed, it remains effective. That Clackamas judg-
ment suffices as support for the ALJ’s determination in this
case that petitioner continued to owe subsequent child sup-
port and that subsequent support enforcement efforts were
not limited by the 2013 Multnomah proceedings. See ORS
19.340 to ORS 19.350 (stays by trial court).
Thus, the issues before the ALJ on administrative
review reduced to whether petitioner owed at least three
months of child support or $2,500. ORS 25.759(5)(a). The
ALJ found that petitioner was subject to an order to pay
child support; that he had made a payment; that the dis-
trict attorney had initiated suspension of petitioner’s driver
and commercial driver licenses; that petitioner had not
entered into a compliance agreement; and that his child
support account balance was $54,707.42. Whatever the
differences may be in the accounting of that balance, the
difference does not draw into question petitioner’s arrear-
age exceeding three months of support or $2,500. The ALJ
did not lack substantial evidence or reason in reaching
1
In an order of February 25, 2013, apparently drafted for the court by peti-
tioner and severally signed by the parties, the court ordered:
“The Division of Child Support and District Attorney are to immediately
issue vacate orders to clear all prior suspensions of Petitioner[’s] licenses. The
Department of Motor Vehicles shall abide by the vacate orders and restore
all of Petitioner[’s] driving privileges and clearances to their pre-suspension
statuses. Unless a suspend order issues from the court, Petitioner[’s] licenses
shall not be suspended based on any child support or arrears.”
(Emphasis added.)
On September 26, 2013, the parties signed a Stipulated Supplemental
Judgment, entered in Multnomah County Circuit Court, that terminated the
support judgment in the Multnomah case and satisfied the arrearages petitioner
owed under that judgment.
520 Kyei v. Div. of Child Support
her conclusions leading to the suspension of petitioner’s
licenses.
Affirmed.