The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Schmidt v. Deal over whether a child may sue as a third‑party beneficiary to recover arrears under a parents' child‑support agreement and whether a five‑year limitations rule bars retroactive recovery.

Attorney Robert Freeman, representing appellant Kimberly Schmidt, told the court that the parties entered a written agreement addressing child support, uninsured medical bills and college expenses, and that the agreement stated it would be enforced consistent with Virginia Code section 20‑108.1 (as the agreement itself referenced). Freeman said the father, Bobby Deal, “for a period of years, 6 years, he didn't pay anything, and he never saw the child,” and that the trial court ultimately found the father in breach of the parties' agreement and set the total amount owed at $69,000.

Freeman argued that the juvenile court could only set ongoing support from the date of filing and therefore could not resolve the contract claim for retroactive arrears; he said he filed a separate breach‑of‑contract action and, to preserve any statute‑of‑limitations issues, sued on behalf of the child through a next‑friend petition. Freeman urged the Supreme Court to resolve the child's third‑party beneficiary claim now rather than remanding, saying the Court of Appeals “completely ignores not just the installment nature of support, but the fact there will be future medical bills, future medical obligations, future college expenses.”

Appellee counsel Lisonbee Mullins told the court the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude the trial court's order did not award contract damages, and that statutory child support and contractual remedies are distinct. Mullins said the trial court relied on public‑policy reasons for enforcement but “the question is whether the court of appeals is correct that no contract damages were contemplated or ordered by the trial court.” Mullins also emphasized the role of time limits, saying the mother's separate claim was vulnerable to a five‑year rule and stressing that the disputed period began years before any court order was entered.

Justices pressed both sides on key points: whether the child is an intended third‑party beneficiary of an agreement that itself refers to statutory support rules; whether installment‑by‑installment accrual restarts the limitations clock (the Court of Appeals' judge applied a five‑year look‑back to installments); and whether the Supreme Court should dispose of the child's claim on the record now or remand for the Court of Appeals to address the child's beneficiary theory. Freeman said the child's claim was briefed to the Court of Appeals and that the appellate panel mischaracterized filings; Mullins responded that the operative rulings and the lack of explicit contract damages in the trial court order support the Court of Appeals' approach.

The argument touched on several authorities cited by counsel, including the code sections governing child support (referred to during argument as 20‑108.1 and 20‑108.2) and precedent such as Shelton and Rodriguez that were discussed in the context of whether a child may bring an independent action or be an intended beneficiary. Counsel disagreed about whether existing precedent and the record permit the Supreme Court to rule on the child's beneficiary claim as a remedial matter without remand.

No opinion or ruling was announced from the bench during the argument. The court's questions indicated uncertainty among the justices about whether the Court of Appeals' disposition should stand or whether the case should be resolved or returned for further consideration of the child's third‑party beneficiary claim and the proper measure of retroactive relief.