Katairoak v State Dept of Revenue Child Support Division

ERA X — Modern Transparency, Labor, & Accountability Expectations
Court Case
2017

Jesse A. KATAIROAK Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, Appellee. Jesse A. Katairoak Sr., Appellant, v. State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Child Support Services Division, Appellee.

What Happened

Jesse Katairoak, Sr. is the father of two minor children with different mothers. In 2011 CSSD served Katairoak separate administrative child support orders for the two children. Because Katairoak was incarcerated he was ordered to pay the minimum child support amount of $50 per month to each custodial parent.[1] Katairoak does not dispute that he is in arrears.</p><p>Although Katairoak has been incarcerated for most of his children’s lives, he was out of prison between December 2012 and May 2014. In January 2014 CSSD administratively modified Katairoak’s support obligation for only his younger child, increasing his monthly obligation to $240 as of November 2013. CSSD calculated his obligation “[b]ased on AK Min wage and PFD,” effectively imputing income to him. This modification was allegedly mailed to Katairoak in February 2014 and remained in effect until a new modification order reducing his monthly support obligation back to the $50 minimum was issued in September 2015, almost 16 months after Katairoak had been re-incarcerated. Katairoak claims that he did not receive notice of the 2014 modification.

In February 2016 CSSD filed separate petitions in superior court to attach Katairoak’s Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) stock dividends and future Permanent Fund Dividends to pay child support arrears owed to his children’s custodial parents. CSSD soon thereafter filed summary judgment motions before the two different superior court judges. After Katairoak opposed CSSD’s petitions and summary judgment motions, both superior courts granted CSSD’s summary judgment motions in May 2016. Katairoak—self-represented—appeals both orders. We consolidated the appeals for this decision.[2]

Why It Matters Today

Adds precedent that influences how ANCSA corporations, regulators, and shareholders interpret governance rights and remedies.

Related Patterns

Pattern 1: Finality Without Adaptation

Related Governance Themes

Clarity around shareholder classes‍

Sources

Primary Source
Secondary Source Link