In re Marriage of Wilson, A140273M

Parents divorced in early 1980s; initial child support order set Father to pay $200/month and arrears were later adjudged ($7,006.19 principal). Father appeared at hearings in 1985 and 1987 and stipulated to various modifications and credits over the years.
From 1981 through most of Minor’s childhood, Minor lived primarily with Father’s parents (Grandparents); Father made some payments to Grandparents and Grandparents sometimes forwarded checks to Mother.
In 1987 the parties stipulated support would be $100/month payable to Grandparents while Minor lived with them, and the court ordered that arrangement; a 2000 stipulation addressed credits for payments made to Grandparents.
In 2012 Father sought relief: stay of enforcement or equitable set-aside of arrearages for the periods Minor lived with Grandparents; credits for payments; and recalculation of interest. Trial court denied relief.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded limited to whether equitable relief (partial or full set-aside) should be granted for periods Minor lived with Grandparents; it affirmed the trial court on jurisdiction/service, fraud, interest calculation, and hearsay evidentiary ruling, but ordered recalculation of arrearage accounting if equitable relief is denied.

Issue	Wilson (Plaintiff/Respondent) Argument	Wilson (Father/Appellant) Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction / service of process	Father appeared repeatedly and therefore consented to jurisdiction; proof of service exists	Father argues he was never served in 1981 so orders are void	Court: Appearance and later stipulations constituted general appearance; jurisdictional objection forfeited and service not shown to be definitively false
Extrinsic fraud (setting aside order)	Mother’s custody claim was not extrinsic fraud; Father had opportunity to litigate	Mother obtained order by falsely claiming custody of Minor	Court: Alleged misrepresentation is intrinsic fraud; too late under §3691; cannot set aside now
Equitable stay / set-aside of arrears for periods Minor lived with Grandparents	Enforcement appropriate; Jackson credits limited to in-home care by obligor	Father: arrears may be inequitable because Grandparents cared for Minor on his behalf and he paid them	Court: Remanded—trial court must exercise discretion to consider whether Grandparents’ in-kind care and Father’s payments discharge some/all arrears; location of care not dispositive
Interest calculation on arrears	Interest accrues from original missed payments under §155 clarification and McClellan	Father urged interest only from arrearage-installment due dates (Dupont)	Court: Followed McClellan—interest accrues from original missed payments; also directed recalculation of account where errors appear

Jackson v. Jackson, 51 Cal.App.3d 363 (explaining equitable relief/quashing enforcement where obligor actually furnished in-home support)
In re Marriage of Trainotti, 212 Cal.App.3d 1072 (trial court should consider whether obligor satisfied support obligation by providing home/support)
Dupont v. Dupont, 88 Cal.App.4th 192 (limited interest-on-installments approach later abrogated by statute and clarified case law)
In re Marriage of McClellan, 130 Cal.App.4th 247 (2002 amendment to Fam. Code §155 clarified interest accrual on child support arrears; interest accrues from missed payments)
County of Alameda v. Weatherford, 36 Cal.App.4th 666 (discussed in connection with installment-judgment/interest analysis)
In re Marriage of Obrecht, 245 Cal.App.4th 1 (general appearance and consent to jurisdiction principles)