 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Phelan2/19/2002
) the defendant was damaged by the delay.
Schultz asserted in his declaration that he and Phelan agreed informally in 1986 that Schultz would no longer pay child support . He then began to support his stepson, largely because of this agreement. In her declaration, Phelan asserted she had never agreed that Schultz would not pay further child support, but did not pursue it because of a serious accident their son Brandon suffered while playing high school football.
This accident occurred in 1993.
Parents cannot agree to terminate an obligation to pay child support . Child support belongs to the child, with the custodial parent receiving it as a trustee; agreements purporting to terminate the obligation are void as against public policy. And the doctrine of laches may be applied to actions seeking payment of past due child support. But in light of our Legislature's determination that vigorous enforcement of child support is urgently needed, such relief should be limited to cases where enforcement would severely harm the defendant and the facts support such a remedy.
The trial court made no explicit finding regarding the doctrine of laches. But our review shows no basis for the application of this doctrine.
2. Statute of Limitations
Schultz argues the trial court erred in applying the statute of limitations. Schultz did not make this argument below; rather, he argued that the statute should apply to include payments from September 1989, 10 years before Phelan's motions were filed, to the children's 18th birthdays.
The trial court agreed with Schultz and entered judgment for the amount argued in his responsive pleading. We will not review a theory or argument that was not presented at the trial court level.
2. Emancipation in Fact of Brandon
Schultz argues that, because Brandon received a large settlement in a personal injury action, he was emancipated in fact from the date of his injury, October 1993 and Schultz should not have to pay child support after that date. Schultz did not raise this argument in the trial court, and we will not consider it on appeal. The trial court used the dates proposed by Schultz below in ordering child support from September 1989 to each child's 18th birthday, and we will not revise that ruling.
3. Interest Calculation
In conjunction with his argument regarding the statute of limitations, Schultz argues the trial court erred in calculating the amount of interest. As noted above, the trial court used Schultz's own calculations to determine the amount of child support . The trial court also used these calculations to determine the amount of interest. Subsequently, Schultz filed a motion in the trial court to modify the interest calculation, and the trial court modified the amount as requested. Now, Schultz argues for the first time on appeal that this modified interest calculation is erroneous. Because this new argument regarding the modified interest calculation was not raised below, we will not consider it.
Attorney's Fees
Phelan requests an award of attorney's fees because she has expended substantial fees on appeal. She also states that the trial court did not award her attorney's fees below despite clear authority to the contrary, but she does not appeal that decision.
Phelan cites no authority for her request for attorneys' fees. When a party fails to cite authority in support of an argument or proposition, this court will not search out those authorities and will not consider the argument. We will not award attorney's fees in this appeal.
CONCLUSION
Because Schultz did
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.
|
|