Preview:

No. 80-46 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

CYNTHIA A. FITZGERALD, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsTIMOTHY P. FITZGERALD, 111, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal From:

District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Leaphart Law Firm, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Page Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Decided :

June 25, 1980

RUG 6 - 1380

M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f from a n o r d e r of t h e

. s t r i c t C o u r t denying h e r p e t i t i o n t o f i n d r e s p o n d e n t
g u i l t y of contempt and f o r payment of $4,400 i n s u p p o r t payments t h a t a r e i n a r r e a r s . T h i s matter began i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Lewis and C l a r k County, F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , when t h e Honorable V i c t o r H. F a l l e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e awarding c u s t o d y The

of t h e minor c h i l d t o t h e mother on A p r i l 30, 1971.

c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n a s t o c h i l d s u p p o r t :
" 3 . T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l n o t have t h e r i g h t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d , u n l e s s and u n t i l , h e p a y s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k of t h i s u c o u r t , t h e s m of f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month a s and f o r s u p p o r t o f t h e minor c h i l d of t h e parties. I f and when d e f e n d a n t b e g i n s t o make s a i d s u p p o r t payment t o p l a i n t i f f , t h e c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , modify t h i s d e c r e e t o permit defendant t h e r i g h t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d a t a l l r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s and p l a c e s . "

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t found i n F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 7: "Defendant e a r n s s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e minor c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o . " C o n c l u s i o n of Law No. 3 stated:

"The d e f e n d a n t s h a l l have no r i g h t t o v i s i t s a i d c h i l d , u n l e s s and u n t i l , he p a y s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h e sum of f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k of t h i s c o u r t f o r t h e s u p p o r t and maintenance of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s hereto. " Respondent d i d n o t make any s u p p o r t payments between A p r i l 1971 and September 1979. The r e c o r d s of t h e c l e r k of

t h e c o u r t i n d i c a t e t h a t he i s i n a r r e a r s i n t h e amount of

Respondent d i d n o t see t h e minor c h i l d between A p r i l 1 9 7 1 and t h e summer of 1979, e x c e p t f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d when t h e c h i l d was a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s p a r e n t s f home i n 1978. After

t h a t meeting w i t h h i s s o n , a v i s i t a t i o n w a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1979 a t t h e r e q u e s t of a p p e l l a n t , r e s p o n d e n t ' s ex-wife. When v i s i t a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1979, r e s p o n d e n t He c o n t e n d s t h a t he w i l l

commenced p a y i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t .

c o n t i n u e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t and wants t o see h i s minor son on a permanent b a s i s . Following t h e v i s i t a t i o n i n 1979

a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of a r r e a r a g e which
i s t h e b a s i s of t h e c u r r e n t a c t i o n .

A p p e l l a n t had n o t

p r e v i o u s l y made any a t t e m p t t o modify t h e o r i g i n a l judgment o r m a i n t a i n any a c t i o n t o c o l l e c t t h e a r r e a r a g e under t h e Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement of S u p p o r t A c t f o r some e i g h t years. Respondent c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l judgment d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t w i t h o u t h i s b e i n g a b l e t o s e e and v i s i t h i s minor c h i l d . S i n c e s u c h v i s i t a t i o n was

n o t e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e e i g h t - y e a r p e r i o d , nor r e q u e s t e d by a p p e l l a n t , h e a r g u e s t h a t i t would b e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and c o n t r a r y t o t h e judgment t o r e q u i r e him t o pay t h e a r r e a r a g e set f o r t h i n the affidavit. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b s t a n -

t i a l l y a g r e e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t i n denying a p p e l l a n t r e l i e f . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review:
1.

Does t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e r e q u i r e t h a t r e s p o n d e n t pay

c h i l d support?
2.

Does t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s a p p l y a s a d e f e n s e t o

t h e s u i t t o enforce a c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n i n t h i s case? I n denying h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e a r r e a r a g e , r e s p o n d e n t c o n t e n d s he had no o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d under t h e d e c r e e u n l e s s and u n t i l h e e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h t of visitation. T h i s argument must be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h e

f i n d i n g of Judge F a l l t h a t r e s p o n d e n t w a s c a p a b l e a t t h e
t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e of p a y i n g $50 p e r month i n s u p p o r t .

The

p r o v i s i o n on v i s i t a t i o n h a s no b e a r i n g whatsoever upon r e s p o n d e n t ' s l e g a l and moral o b l i g a t i o n s t o s u p p o r t h i s child. The d e c r e e d i d n o t and c o u l d n o t c o n d i t i o n t h e

s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n on t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t of v i s i t a tion. N.W.2d See P a t e r s o n v. P a t e r s o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 73 Wis.2d 150, 242 907; R e f e r v. R e f e r ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 102 Mont. 121, 56 P.2d

750; S t a t e e x r e l . Lay v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 2 Mont.

I n e a r l i e r c a s e s t h i s C o u r t h a s spoken o u t on t h e moral
o b l i g a t i o n of p a r e n t s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y f a t h e r s , t o s u p p o r t t h e i r children. R e f e r v. R e f e r , s u p r a ; S t a t e e x r e l . Lay I n Lay, t h i s C o u r t , c i t i n g e a r -

v. D i s t r i c t Court, supra. l i e r opinions, noted:

I t i s t h e l e g a l as w e l l a s t h e moral d u t y of a p a r e n t t o s u p p o r t h i s minor c h i l d r e n and t h e f a t h e r i s n o t a b s o l v e d from t h e d u t y by a d i v o r c e from t h e i r mother. [Citations o m i t t e d . ] Thus d e f e n d a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e r e q u i r e d money f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s i n f a n t d a u g h t e r i s n o t simply a n o u t g r o w t h of t h e d i v o r c e s u i t n o r i s i t a mere i n c i d e n t t h e r e t o , b u t i t i s a s o c i a l and a p a r e n t a l o b l i g a t i o n imposed by l a w . 122 Mont. a t 71-72, 198 P.2d a t 767.

". . .

. ."

T h i s view was r e c e n t l y c i t e d and s u p p o r t e d i n Woolverton v . Woolverton ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 490, 549 P.2d 458. Respondent f a i l s t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e law imposes upon c i v i l i z e d men--the t o p r o v i d e food and s h e l t e r a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r h i s own. duty
It is

o n e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s upon which Adam was bounced o u t o f t h e g a r d e n , and i t h a s been t h e law e v e r s i n c e . inherent jurisdiction t o protect infants. C o u r t s have a n They are wards o f

t h e government, and t h e c o u r t s a r e t o p r o t e c t t h e i r b r e a d and b u t t e r . When d o i n g s o , t h e y do n o t t a k e t h e i r c l u e from

E l i j a h and t h e r a v e n s , b u t draw i t from t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e father.
W e find the court incorrectly applied the r u l e i n

t h i s case, and i t s judgment must be r e v e r s e d .

Concerning t h e second i s s u e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of J a n u a r y 24, 1980, f i n d s , i n e f f e c t , t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s f o r e c l o s e d from r e c o v e r i n g t h e back c h i l d s u p p o r t by t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s o r estoppel. S e v e r a l matters a r e of i m p o r t h e r e . F i r s t of a l l , t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r assumes m a t t e r s n o t i n e v i d e n c e , i.e., t h a t a p p e l l a n t made no r e q u e s t f o r back s u p p o r t u n t i l

r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t v i s i t a t i o n and commenced p a y i n g s u p p o r t . The r e c o r d i s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Respondent commenced h i s

s u p p o r t payments i n September 1979, o n l y a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a demand l e t t e r from a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l . Second, r e g a r d l e s s

o f when o r why r e s p o n d e n t commenced making h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, he i s n o t r e l i e v e d of h i s p a s t c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n by t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s o r e s t o p p e l . While t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s q u e s t i o n p r e v i o u s l y , s e v e r a l of o u r s i s t e r s t a t e s have.
W e adopt

t h e i r w e l l - r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n s f o r o u r h o l d i n g on t h i s i s s u e . The Supreme C o u r t of Kansas, i n S t r e c k e r v . Wilkinson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 220 Kan. 292, 552 P.2d 979, n o t e d t h a t s u p p o r t of c h i l d r e n , l i k e t h e i r c u s t o d y , i s a m a t t e r of s o c i a l c o n c e r n .
I t i s an

o b l i g a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r owes t h e s t a t e a s w e l l as t o h i s children. The c o u r t n o t e d :

The p a r e n t a l d u t y t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e s u p p o r t and maintenance of a c h i l d c o n t i n u e s t h r o u g h t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y , and t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t may be e n f o r c e d by a n a c t i o n a t any t i m e d u r i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y . " 552 P.2d a t 984. The c o u r t t h e n went on t o h o l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t " i n v o k e t h e d e f e n s e of l a c h e s a s a b a r t o e n f o r c e h i s moral and l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t h i s c h i l d . "

". . .

I n a c a s e on a l m o s t a l l f o u r s t o t h i s c a s e , t h e Wiscons i n c o u r t i n P a t e r s o n v. P a t e r s o n , s u p r a , a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f t o the issue support. of l a c h e s a s a d e f e n s e t o a c l a i m f o r back

I n P a t e r s o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t had f a i l e d t o make h i s

$50 a month payment f o r a p e r i o d of n i n e y e a r s and t h e mother d i d n o t t a k e any l e g a l a c t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of t h i r t e e n y e a r s , a t which t i m e s h e o b t a i n e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e why t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o pay a r r e a r a g e . The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d e d l a c h e s and

f u r t h e r t h a t he had been m i s l e d t o h i s d e t r i m e n t by t h e mother's inaction. The Wisconsin c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e doc-

t r i n e of l a c h e s does n o t apply t o t h e enforcement of c h i l d support orders: "However, w e would f u r t h e r h o l d t h a t t h e defense of laches i s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n an a c t i o n o r proceeding brought t o secure enforcement of a c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n . " P a t e r s o n , 242 N.W.2d a t 910. The Wisconsin c o u r t n o t e d t h a t even though one might r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t t h e c u s t o d i a n t o promptly s e e k t h e e n f o r c e ment of a s u p p o r t o r d e r , f a i l u r e of t h e c u s t o d i a n t o do s o d o e s n o t i n u r e t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p e r s o n c h o o s i n g n o t t o make t h e payments and s t a t e d :
I t may b e r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t when c h i l d s u p p o r t payments a r e n o t made, t h e cust o d i a n , e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e s u c h payments, w i l l s e e k compliance w i t h t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r However, i f t h e c o u r t o r c u s t o d i a n do n o t promptly proceed s o t o do, t h e p e r s o n c h o o s i n g n o t t o make t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments i s n o t 242 N.W.2d t o p r o f i t o r b e n e f i t thereby. a t 910.

". . .
. . .

. ."

The P a t e r s o n c o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t t h e r i g h t s and t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n are a t s t a k e and c a n n o t be s a c r i f i c e d by t h e i r c u s t o d i a n ' s i n a c t i o n . The c o u r t s a i d :

"The r e a s o n i s t h a t , j u s t a s a d i v o r c e i n t h i s s t a t e does n o t i n v o l v e o n l y t h e d i v o r c i n g s p o u s e s , j u s t s o a n o r d e r f o r t h e c h i l d sup-

p o r t does n o t involve only t h e p a r e n t required t o make such payments and t h e c u s t o d i a n e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e them. Under t h e s t a t u t e s u c h payments a r e made f o r t h e ' s u p p o r t , maintenance and e d u c a t i o n of t h e minor c h i l d r e n ' of t h e p a r ties. I n t h i s s t a t e such c h i l d r e n a r e ' i n t e r e s t e d and a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s ' i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n involving t h e i r parents. The r i g h t s of such c h i l d r e n are t o be s e r v e d and p r o t e c t e d Once a c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t e r m i n a t e s , t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s b e g i n s t o r u n , b u t , t h e n and e a r l i e r , t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s d o e s n o t apply." 242 N.W. 2d a t 910.

...

For t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d

reasons, we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t

e r r e d i n holding t h a t laches applied here. Finally, appellant i n her brief before t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , r e q u e s t e d t h a t i n t e r e s t be awarded w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e back c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . This Court i n t h e r e c e n t

c a s e of W i l l i a m s v . Budke ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 515, 37 St.Rep. 228, h e l d :

- Mont.

,

606 P.2d

"We h o l d t h e r e f o r e t h a t when t h e m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e i s s i l e n t a s t o i n t e r e s t , such i n t e r e s t i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o l l e c t i b l e by t h e judgment c r e d i t o r s p o u s e on p a s t - d u e payments f o r s u p p o r t money o r maintenance, t h e same a s any o t h e r money judgment under s e c t i o n 25-9205, MCA." 606 P.2d a t 519, 3 7 St.Rep. a t 234. On t h e b a s i s of W i l l i a m s a p p e l l a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e i n t e r e s t on c h i l d s u p p o r t payments which were due and owing s i n c e A p r i l 1971. The d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r e n t r y of judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n .

R
Justice
W e concur:

/

/i-[-Ylr

w



Download 1a377520-2c89-48cc-8d0a-3426743f43a3.pdf

Montana Law