Wasescha v. Wasescha
| Citation | 548 P.2d 895 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 14202,14202 |
| Parties | Patricia WASESCHA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LaMar S. WASESCHA, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Joseph J. Palmer and Jeffrey N. Clayton, of Moyle & Draper, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bryce E. Roe, of Roe & Fowler, Salt Lake City, for defendant-respondent.
Appeal from a judgment denying relief on the occasion of an order to show cause why a defendant father should not be required to pay to his ex-wife accrued child support,--to which the defendant father pleaded a valid contract of settlement therefor, and/or an equitable estoppel or waiver thereof. Affirmed with no costs awarded.
The trial judge obviously believed that part of controverted evidence, reflected in the record, which supported his conclusion,--and we are constrained to go along.
The Waseschas married in 1953, to which joinder five children were born. In 1965 a divorce ensued,--and taking the evidence even in a light more favorable to the loser's (Mrs. W's) urgence on appeal,--which is an upside-down appellate application of the rule on appeal, we cannot conclude other than that the principle of estoppel claimed by defendant and espoused in Larsen v. Larsen 1 is dispositive here, on the following abstracted facts,--not unfavorable, it would seem, to ex-Mrs. W:
She was awarded custody of the children, with a support award. Since September, 1970, Mr. W has paid no support save for one of the children, who was somewhat ungovernable, who in March, 1970, went to live with his grandma, later with Mr. W, and later in a foster home. Mrs. W says that Mr. W's claim that in an October, 1970, conversation, she would forego all support money for all the offspring is a lie, but that she, in her brief, 'asked' Mr. W 'to leave her and her family situation alone for the time being.' Other controversions controvert the controversions,--but 'dealt only with future support,'--and not 'as to past due amounts,'--which is the language of Mrs. W's brief. Her testimony and continued contention in her brief was that 'this was not an action to reimburse herself or her husband (second,--one Moress) for support rendered to the children' and 'that if a recovery were made, all sums would be placed in trust for the benefit of the children to help them with further education or living, whatever their needs may be.'
Such a position, conceded by Mrs. W, sounds to us like an admission that the children were supported by her and her new husband under perhaps unusual circumstances, but unaccompanied with hunger,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Human Services ex rel. Parker v. Irizarry
...P.2d 144, 146 (Utah 1987) (holding that equitable doctrines, such as estoppel, apply in statutory paternity actions); Wasescha v. Wasescha, 548 P.2d 895, 896 (Utah 1976) (holding that one who provided back child support may be estopped from seeking reimbursement for money In Burrow v. Vront......
-
State By and Through Utah State Dept. of Social Services v. Sucec, s. 950205
...the child. Id.; Hansen v. Gossett, 590 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Utah 1979); Gulley v. Gulley, 570 P.2d 127, 129 (Utah 1977); Wasescha v. Wasescha, 548 P.2d 895, 896 (Utah 1976); Baggs, 528 P.2d at In Baggs, we recognized that child-support obligations fall into two distinct categories. 528 P.2d at ......
-
Hansen v. Gossett, 15471
...No costs awarded. CROCKETT, C. J., and MAUGHAN and WILKINS, JJ., concur. STEWART, J., does not participate herein. 1 Wasescha v. Wasescha, Utah, 548 P.2d 895 (1976); see also, Mason v. Mason, 148 Or. 34, 34 P.2d 328 ...