Schneider v. Department of Human Services
| Decision Date | 03 December 1992 |
| Citation | 617 A.2d 211 |
| Parties | Charles SCHNEIDER v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Mary B. Najarian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Human Services, Portland, for appellant.
Martin Schindler, South Portland, for appellee.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and RUDMAN, JJ.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Alexander, J.) granting Charles Schneider partial relief from a DHS decision finding him liable for a child support debt. We vacate the judgment.
Charles Schneider and Barbara Loy were divorced in Massachusetts in March 1977. Under the terms of the divorce judgment, Schneider was ordered to make payments to Loy for support of their minor child. Schneider made no support payments until February 1981.
In December 1990, Loy, a Connecticut resident, petitioned the Connecticut Superior Court to enforce the child support order. Because Schneider is a Maine resident, DHS pursued the collection of the past due support payments pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 331-420 (1981 & Supp.1991), and supplementary statutes, 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 491-516 (1981 & Supp.1991). Schneider was served with a notice from DHS showing that he had incurred a child support debt of $5,640. Schneider then sought administrative review.
The hearing officer found that Schneider owed child support arrearage of $4,820 and concluded that because of the limitations in 19 M.R.S.A. § 515(2-A)(B) (Supp.1991), she lacked jurisdiction to consider the equitable defenses raised by Schneider. Schneider challenged the DHS action in the Superior Court on the ground of laches. The court sustained Schneider's defense and discharged $4,000 of the arrearage that accrued between March 1977 and February 1981. This appeal followed.
While acknowledging a split of authority in other jurisdictions, we recently left unanswered the question whether the defense of laches can defeat an action for child support arrearage. See Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 87 (Me.1992). Nor do we need to answer that question in the present case because the record is devoid of any evidence showing prejudice to Schneider's rights because of Loy's delay in requesting full payment of the child support owed her. Laches cannot be predicated on delay alone. Id. at 87; Tewksbury v. Noyes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brochu v. McLeod
...can defeat an action for child support arrearages is one that we have declined to answer in two recent cases.”); Schneider v. Dep't of Human Servs. , 617 A.2d 211, 212 (Me.1992) (“[W]e recently left unanswered the question whether the defense of laches can defeat an action for child support......
-
Quirk v. Quirk
...of time alone." Tewksbury v. Noyes , 138 Me. 127, 135, 23 A.2d 204 (1941) (quotation marks omitted); see also Schneider v. Dep't of Hum. Servs. , 617 A.2d 211, 212 (Me. 1992) (citing Tewksbury for this proposition). Rather, to meet the first element, the delay must be unreasonable and unexp......
-
Fisco v. Department of Human Services
...of the decree unnecessary. We review directly the evidence developed before the administrative tribunal. See Schneider v. Dept. of Human Servs., 617 A.2d 211, 212 (Me.1992). We review the agency's findings of facts to determine whether they are supported by any competent evidence. Vector Ma......
-
Trimble v. Commissioner, Dept. of Human Services
...can defeat an action for child support arrearages is one that we have declined to answer in two recent cases. Schneider v. Department of Human Servs., 617 A.2d 211, 212 (Me.1992); Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 87 (Me.1992); but see Jack v. Department of Human Servs., 556 A.2d 1093, 1095 (M......