State ex rel. Barbara Jean S. v. Stephen Leo S.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 23326,23326
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. BARBARA JEAN S., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. STEPHEN LEO S., Defendant Below, Appellee.

Page 895

479 S.E.2d 895

198 W.Va. 234

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. BARBARA JEAN S., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. STEPHEN LEO S., Defendant Below, Appellee.

No. 23326.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Sept. 18, 1996.

Decided Nov. 20, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "If a circuit court believes a family law master failed to make findings of fact essential to the proper resolution of a legal question, it should remand the case to the family law master to make those findings. If it is of the view that the findings of fact of a family law master were clearly erroneous, the circuit court may set those findings aside on that basis. If it believes the findings of fact of the family law master are unassailable, but the proper rule of law was misapplied to those findings, the circuit court may reverse. However, a circuit court may not substitute its own findings of fact for those of a family law master merely because it disagrees with those findings." Syllabus Point 4, Stephen L.H. v. Sherry L.H., 195 W.Va. 384, 465 S.E.2d 841 (1995).

2. " 'Where a party knows his rights or is cognizant of his interest in a particular subject-matter, but takes no steps to enforce the same until the condition of the other party has, in good faith, become so changed, that he cannot be restored to his former state if the right be then enforced, delay becomes inequitable, and operates as an estoppel against the assertion of the right. This disadvantage may come from death of parties, loss of evidence, change of title or condition of the subject-matter, intervention of equities, or other causes. When a court of equity sees negligence on one side and injury therefrom on the other, it is a ground for denial of relief.' Syllabus Point 3, Carter v. Price, 85 W.Va. 744, 102 S.E. 685 (1920); Syllabus Point 2, Mundy v. Arcuri, 165 W.Va. 128, 267 S.E.2d 454 (1980)." Syllabus Point 5, Laurie v. Thomas, 170 W.Va. 276, 294 S.E.2d 78 (1982).

3. "Where the welfare of the child has not been adversely affected, a custodial parent may be barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from seeking enforcement of the decretal obligation of a noncustodial parent who has executed formal consent to adoption by the custodial parent and the custodial parent's current spouse in exchange for the release of that decretal obligation if the adoption is not consummated to the detriment or disadvantage of the noncustodial parent due to inaction on the part of the custodial parent." Syllabus Point 3, Kimble v. Kimble, 176 W.Va. 45, 341 S.E.2d 420 (1986).

Charles B. Mullins, II, Pineville, for Defendant Below, Appellee.

R. Jeffrey Johnson, Office of the Child Advocate, Charleston, for Plaintiff Below, Appellant.

PER CURIAM:

This is a domestic relations case involving child support arrearage. The appellant, Barbara Jean S., appealed from a final order of the Circuit Court of Wyoming County setting aside the recommended order of the family law master. The family law master recommended the appellee, Stephen Leo S., pay appellant $28,000 in child support arrearage. The circuit court's order nullified payment of arrearage in any amount. The appellant seeks to have the family law master's recommendation reinstated. ¹

I.

This case starts out with the divorce granted to the appellant and appellee on January 30, 1987. The divorce decree awarded custody of the parties' two children to the appellant. ² The decree also awarded appellant $300 per month in alimony and obligated the appellee to pay $500 per month in child support payments. In 1989, the appellant decided to marry Thomas Crouse. Also in the same year, the appellee decided to marry Sharon Crouse. The record indicates that Thomas and Sharon were previously wed and had three children from their marriage. Prior to the remarriage of the four individuals, they each executed an agreement on November 17, 1989, which purported to absolve the appellee of child support payments to the appellant. Under the agreement, Thomas Crouse was obligated to provide for the support of appellant's two children. In turn, the appellee agreed to provide for the support of Thomas' three children. ³ The record indicates that the four individuals eventually carried out their marriage plans.

In 1994, the appellant and appellee ended up in front of a family law master. ⁴ The appellant sought to enforce arrearage payment of child support from November 17, 1989, to the date of filing her petition for modification of the divorce decree. The appellee, on the other hand, requested that the alimony and child support provisions in the divorce decree be terminated. A hearing on the matters was held by the family law master. The appellee argued that his obligation to pay child support was removed by the agreement between the parties on November 17, 1989, and because of the fact that both children were now emancipated--one child having become emancipated by age, while the other became emancipated through marriage. The family law master issued her recommended order which required the appellee to pay child support arrearage for the period November, 1989 to June, 1994, in the amount of $28,000. It was further recommended that the alimony provision be terminated, and that the child support payments be reduced from $500 per month to $389.70 per month starting March, 1995. The family law master continued the child support for the youngest child, even though said child was emancipated through marriage.

The appellee objected to the family law masters' recommendation, insofar as it obligated him to pay arrearage child support and future child support. By order entered May 5, 1995, the circuit court set aside the family law master's recommendation. This appeal followed. The appellant is asking that the family law master's recommendation be reinstated.

II.

In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, we apply a two-prong deferential review standard. Our review of the final order and the ultimate disposition are made under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review. See Syl. Pt. 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995); Phillips v. Fox, 193 W.Va. 657, 661, 458 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1995). We stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Stephen L.H. v. Sherry L.H., 195 W.Va. 384, 465 S.E.2d 841 (1995), that:

"A circuit court should review findings of fact by a family law master only under a clearly erroneous standard, and it should review the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard."

We also held in Syllabus Point 3 of Stephen L.H. that:

"Under the clearly erroneous standard, if the findings of fact and the inferences drawn by a family law master are supported by substantial evidence, such findings and inferences may not be overturned even if a circuit court may be inclined to make different findings or draw contrary inferences."

Finally, under Syllabus Point 4 of Stephen L.H. we stated that:

"If a circuit court believes a family law master failed to make findings of fact essential to the proper resolution of a legal question, it should remand the case to the family law master to make those findings. If it is of the view that the findings of fact of a family law master were clearly erroneous, the circuit court may set those findings aside on that basis. If it believes the findings of fact of the family law master are unassailable, but the proper rule of law was misapplied to those findings, the circuit court may reverse. However, a circuit court may not substitute its own findings of fact for those of a family law master merely because it disagrees with those findings."

The first issue we must address is whether the appellant's delay in prosecuting this claim for child support arrearage is foreclosed by the doctrine of laches. In Syllabus Point 4 of Laurie v. Thomas, 170 W.Va. 276, 294 S.E.2d 78 (1982), we indicated that " '[t]he general rule in equity is that mere lapse of time, unaccompanied by circumstances which create a presumption that the right has been abandoned, does not constitute laches.' Syllabus Point 4, Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corporation, 141 W.Va. 627, 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956)." Time, standing alone, is insufficient to trigger the doctrine of laches. In Syllabus Point 5 of Laurie we held:

" 'Where a party knows his rights or is cognizant of his interest in a particular subject-matter, but takes no steps to enforce the same until the condition of the other party has, in good faith, become so changed, that he cannot be restored to his former state if the right be then enforced, delay becomes inequitable, and operates as an estoppel against the assertion of the right. This disadvantage may come from death of parties, loss of evidence, change of title or condition of the subject-matter, intervention of equities, or other causes. When a court of equity sees negligence on one side and injury therefrom on the other, it is a ground for denial of relief.' Syllabus Point 3, Carter v. Price, 85 W.Va. 744, 102 S.E. 685 (1920); Syllabus Point 2, Mundy v. Arcuri, 165 W.Va. 128, 267 S.E.2d 454 (1980)."

In the instant proceeding, there is no question that the appellant's delay in seeking legal redress will work an unjustifiable hardship on the appellee. With each passing year, the appellee provided child support for the children of his second wife, which monies could have been given to the appellant had she timely invoked her right to receive child support payments from the appellee. The doctrine of laches would appear to be appropriate in this case to prevent the appellant from seeking arrearage child support payments. However, in Syllabus Point 6 of Robinson v. McKinney, 189 W.Va. 459, 432 S.E.2d 543 (1993), we held that "[t]he ten-year statute of limitations set forth in W.Va.Code, 38-3-18 [1923] and not the doctrine of...