Trimble v. Commissioner, Dept. of Human Services

• Decision Date: 20 December 1993
• Citation: 635 A.2d 937
• Parties: William K. TRIMBLE, v. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 937

635 A.2d 937

William K. TRIMBLE, v. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Nov. 2, 1993.

Decided Dec. 20, 1993.

Sheila R. McLaughlin (orally), Douglas, Whiting, Denham & Rogers, Portland, for appellant.

Mary B. Najarian (orally), Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Human Services, Portland, for appellee.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, RUDMAN and DANA, JJ.

CLIFFORD, Justice.

William K. Trimble appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Brennan, J.) affirming a decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services ¹ to uphold the claim of the Department of Human Services (DHS) of $36,500 in child support arrearages pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 331-420 (1981 & Supp.1992). Trimble alleges that he was denied opportunities to present equitable defenses that should have defeated the URESA action. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

The record reflects that William Trimble and Tana Trimble (now Tana Harben, hereinafter referred to as "Harben") were divorced by a decree entered in the District Court of El Paso County, Texas, on June 11, 1981. The parties had two minor children. The decree stated that the children would reside with Harben and that Trimble would pay child support to Harben of $500 monthly, amounting to $250 per child, until each child reached the age of 18. The decree also set forth a visitation schedule that called for the children to spend alternating major holidays and one month each summer with their father.

According to Trimble, Harben began denying him visitation with the children in 1981. Trimble initiated contempt proceedings in the divorce court, and the summer 1982 visit took place as scheduled. His last visit with the children pursuant to the divorce decree was at Christmas of 1982. Rather than pursue further remedial action in court, Trimble ceased making child support payments to Harben in November of 1983. Trimble testified that he took this action on receiving a letter from one of the children, bearing a German postmark, informing him that neither of the children would be having any further contact with him.

Trimble testified that in 1988, Harben offered to permit him to resume contact with the children if he would relinquish to her his custodianship of the children's $12,000 mutual fund. He did so, but contact did not resume. One of the children ran away from home, and in 1989 came to live with Trimble. Trimble testified that in mid-1989, he attempted to resume support payments of $250 in exchange for Harben's promise to permit renewed contact with the other child, but his checks were returned to him and he was not able to resume contact.

Trimble now resides in Standish. Harben lives in the state of Alabama, where she began a URESA action to seek support arrearages due from Trimble. On October 3, 1990, the Juvenile Court of the 23rd Judicial Circuit of Alabama found a support arrearage of $36,000 and forwarded the petition to the Maine Department of Human Services for further proceedings. See 19 M.R.S.A. § 400 (1981 & Supp.1992) (designating the DHS as the "state information agency" that receives and acts on URESA petitions from other states). Following an administrative hearing pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 515 (1981 & Supp.1992), at which Trimble testified and argued that the equitable defense of laches should defeat the support enforcement action, the hearing officer found an arrearage of $36,500. ²

Pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80C, Trimble then sought review of the Commissioner's final agency action in the Superior Court. After an initial hearing, the court denied Trimble's motion to have the court take additional evidence pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80C(e), with respect to the equitable defenses Trimble was seeking to assert. Following a hearing on the merits, the court affirmed the support debt as determined by the hearing officer. Trimble then filed this appeal.

Trimble argues that pursuant to Rule 80C(e), he should have had an opportunity to present evidence to the Superior Court as to the equitable defenses of laches, waiver, and estoppel. We review the court's denial of the Rule 80C(e) motion for an abuse of discretion. Carl L. Cutler Co. v. State Purchasing Agent, 472 A.2d 913, 919 (Me.1984).

The administrative record demonstrates that Trimble relied primarily on laches, not really pursuing the issues of waiver or estoppel before the hearing officer. Trimble also conceded at oral argument before this court that essentially all of his evidence as to equitable defenses is already in the record. Similarly, the written offer of proof Trimble filed with the Superior Court does not recite what, if any, additional evidence relevant to equitable defenses Trimble wished to present. See M.R.Civ.P. 80C(e) (requiring "a detailed statement, in the nature of an offer of proof, of the evidence intended to be taken." )

A party to a support enforcement proceeding is not precluded from presenting evidence on equitable issues at an administrative hearing. Although the DHS is without jurisdiction to consider equitable issues in support of enforcement proceedings, the applicable DHS regulation contemplates the presentation of some equitable issues evidence at the administrative level. ³

During the hearing, Trimble acknowledged before the hearing officer that equitable defenses "cannot be addressed" at the administrative level. Nevertheless, Trimble testified at length about Harben's repeated violation of the provisions of the divorce decree...