 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Phelan2/19/2002
Robert Schultz appeals a judgment ordering him to pay past due child support plus interest. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to apply the doctrine of laches to prohibit his ex-wife, Lane Phelan, from obtaining relief. He also contends the trial court erred in ordering payments barred by the statute of limitations and his son Brandon's emancipation in fact. Finally he contends the trial court erred in calculating interest on the past due payments. Because the trial court's decision regarding laches was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. Because the other arguments were not made to the trial court, we will not consider them.
FACTS
Robert Schultz and Lane Phelan were previously married and are the parents of two children: Brandon, born October 11, 1977, and Deneva, born September 1, 1979. Schultz and Phelan divorced in 1981, and the court ordered Schultz to make monthly payments for child support. He made those payments until some time in 1986. In pleadings filed on September 20, 1999, Phelan moved for an order of contempt and to modify support, seeking past due child support for the period from January 1986 to September 1999.
Schultz responded to the motions, contending the 10-year statute of limitations prevented the trial court from ordering him to pay past due child support payments before September 1989, 10 years before Phelan filed her motions. He also asserted that the terms of the Dissolution Decree ended his responsibility for child support upon each child's 18th birthday.
Alternatively, Schultz argued the doctrine of laches applied to prevent the trial court from ordering any past due child support.
The trial court entered findings that Schultz failed to comply with the previous order to pay child support and that he had the past and present means and ability to pay. The court ordered him to pay arrearages for the period between September 1989 and each child's 18th birthday plus interest. The trial court also found that Schultz was not in contempt of court. Subsequently Schultz filed a motion to modify the interest calculation. The trial court made the requested modification in accordance with supporting documents filed by Schultz.
DISCUSSION
Phelan filed both a motion for modification of child support and a motion for contempt. A motion for modification of child support is decided on the affidavits, petition, answer, and worksheets only. No report of proceedings was filed in this court. Though the trial court considers the motion without oral testimony, we do not review the decision de novo. The trial court is in a better position to weigh competing assertions and discrepancies of fact. We review the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, or whether the trial court made an error of law.
1. Laches
Schultz argues the trial court erred when it refused to apply the equitable doctrine of laches in this case. He contends that he will be damaged if he is ordered to make past due payments after a 13-year delay. The purpose of the doctrine of laches is to prevent injury to the party asserting it, where the injury is caused by his opponent's delay. The party asserting laches bears the burden of proof. Unless there are unusual circumstances, laches should not be used to bar an action instituted within the applicable statute of limitations. To make a valid claim of laches, the defendant must prove that (1) the plaintiff had knowledge of or could have discovered the facts constituting the cause of action; (2) the plaintiff delayed filing the claim for an unreasonable period of time; and (3
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|