Elkind v. Byck

Elkind (plaintiff) was married to Byck (defendant) in New York in 1956. The couple divorced in Georgia in 1957, a few months after their daughter was born. Byck attempted to satisfy his child-support obligations by entering into an agreement with Elkind that included a one-time lump sum deposited with a Georgia bank for the benefit of his daughter. At the time, such settlements were final, unmodifiable, and enforceable under Georgia law. Thereafter, Elkind filed a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) in New York for increased support against Byck, who by then was residing in California. Elkind did not allege that Byck had failed to comply with the settlement, but because Georgia had enacted the URESA at the time of the settlement and it imposed a duty to support dependent children notwithstanding a prior settlement, she alleged that she required more support. Elkind relied on a choice-of-law provision in the URESA that imposed support duties according to the law of the state where the obligor was present during the period for which support was sought, which she argued applied to the time Byck resided in California. The New York court ordered that the petition be transmitted to a court in California, where it was denied by reason of the previous Georgia settlement. Elkind appealed. Byck argued that under Yarborough v. Yarborough, the court could not impose any support obligation more than the duty in the Georgia settlement without violating full faith and credit.