Carter v. Carter
| Decision Date | 24 July 1992 |
| Citation | 611 A.2d 86 |
| Parties | Sue Fen CARTER a/k/a Su Feng Shih v. David A. CARTER. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Tobi L. Schneider, Waterville, Raymond Ritchie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff.
James A. Mitchell, Butler, Whittier & Laliberty, Waterville, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.
Defendant David A. Carter appeals from a judgment ordering him to pay an arrearage of $17,129 for child support accruing from October 28, 1978, to November 29, 1989. The District Court (Waterville, Westcott, J.) found defendant liable for the arrearage even though the parties had not been in contact during that time and plaintiff and the children had been out of the country. The Superior Court affirmed (Kennebec County, Alexander, J.). On appeal, defendant challenges the District Court's failure to apply equitable estoppel, waiver, laches, or the statute of limitations to reduce or eliminate his support obligation. Finding no error, we affirm.
The District Court made detailed findings of fact that, briefly summarized, established the following: The parties were divorced in October 1978, and have two minor children (a daughter, now eighteen, adopted by defendant, and a son, now fifteen, born to the parties). The court ordered defendant to pay child support in the amount of $30 per week plus medical expenses, and provided for his visitation with the children on alternate weekends. Two months after the divorce, with defendant's assistance and knowledge, plaintiff and the children returned to her family in Taiwan, remaining abroad until 1989, when they moved to California. Defendant has been regularly employed since the time of the divorce, was capable of making all child support payments as they became due, and currently has the ability to pay the arrearage. Defendant's argument is essentially that plaintiff's eleven-year delay in seeking child support combined with her failure to notify him of her location or to provide visitation relieves him of his support obligation by virtue of estoppel, laches, waiver, or expiration of the statute of limitations.
Assuming estoppel, laches, or waiver could defeat an action for support arrearages (as has been found in some jurisdictions), 1 defendant has failed to make the showing necessary to establish each of these defenses. "Before the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked, the declarations or acts relied upon must have induced the party seeking to enforce an estoppel to do what resulted to his detriment and what he would not otherwise have done." Roberts v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 404 A.2d 238, 241 (Me.1979). Defendant has failed to show how he has changed his position in reliance on plaintiff's nonenforcement of the court-ordered obligation. The court's order merely requires him to pay what he had owed for many years. Similarly, the doctrine of laches requires a showing that the delay caused prejudice to him, and defendant has not shown that he undertook any obligation that he would have forsaken. Defendant has also failed to establish that plaintiff intentionally relinquished her entitlement to child support. See Kraul v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 559 A.2d 338 (Me.1989) ().
Finally, defendant argues that the six-year statute of limitations should apply to bar plaintiff's claim for arrearages accruing before November 1983. The applicable statute provides:
All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards, except actions on a judgment or decree....
14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). This is our first occasion to address the application of this statute to an action for child support arrearages. The pertinent question is whether past due payments of child support are the equivalent of "judgments" falling within the exception for actions based on judgments or decrees. Most jurisdictions considering this question have so found, reasoning that because past due child support payments cannot be modified retroactively, each payment becomes a judgment debt as of the date due. See 2 H. Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations 394-95 (1987); Hauck v. Schuck, 353 P.2d 79 (Colo.1960) and Koon v. Koon, 50...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US Bank Tr. v. Tenpenny
... ... But this provision of section 752 ... relates to actions to enforce prior court judgments. See, ... e.g. , Carter v. Carter , 611 A.2d 86, 87-88 (Me ... 1992) (concluding that enforcement of child support orders ... falls outside of the six-year ... ...
-
Brochu v. McLeod
...the inapplicability of laches to child support obligations. First, child support arrearages are money judgments. Carter v. Carter , 611 A.2d 86, 87–88 (Me.1992). We have previously explained that “the right to the payment of [child] support becomes vested as it becomes due,”id. at 87, and t......
-
Temple v. DiPietro
...section 864"does not ... bar" actions commenced after twenty years; rather, it merely creates a rebuttable presumption. Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 88 n. 2 (Me.1992) ; see also Knight v. Macomber, 55 Me. 132, 134 (1868). Thus, it does not prevent Faith Temple from going forward with its ......
-
Longley v. Knapp
...See A.H. Benoit & Co. v. Johnson, 160 Me. 201, 202 A.2d 1, 5 (1964). Laches cannot be predicated on delay alone. See Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 87 (Me.1992). The issue of whether the equitable doctrine of laches applies in a given circumstance is one of law. See H.E. Sargent v. Town of ......
-
Calculating Simple Interest on Delinquent Installment Judgments
...Copyright 2000 Arthur J. Keenan Alimony and child support installment obligations are judgments in installments. Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 88 (Me. 1992) (child support). See Allen v. Allen, 629 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Me. 1993) (alimony). Each installment that is not timely paid bears interes......