LaCHANCE v. Richman
248 P.3d 1020
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Richman and LaChance never married, dated since 2002, and had a son P.R.L. born March 26, 2003; they separated in August 2003 with Richman as primary custodian.
- An informal child support arrangement existed; parties dispute LaChance's payments in 2003–2006 (Richman: ~$200/2003, $1000/2004, $1500/year 2005–2006; LaChance: ~$200/month Oct 2003–mid-2005, then $250/month).
- January 2007 LaChance filed paternity/custody petition seeking shared custody and $232/month support; district court granted temporary orders and set support during pendency.
- 2017–2008 sequence: temporary orders and stipulations adjusted support; arrearages reserved for later adjudication; March 2008 decree set $494/month and again reserved arrearages.
- June 2008 Richman moved for arrearages from August 2003–December 2006; September 2008 court reserved pre-petition arrearages for trial; August 2009 hearing occurred with disputes over time with each parent and payments; arguments regarding estoppel/laches and reimbursement vs. child support.
- August 18, 2009 order denied pre-petition arrearages; Richman appealed; Richman later moved under Rule 59 alleging statute-based calculation; district court denied the Rule 59 motion and Richman did not timely appeal that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-petition arrearages must be calculated under the Act guidelines | Richman argues Act guidelines apply to pre-petition arrearages | LaChance contends reimbursement framework controls or not preserved | Issue not preserved; appellate review declined |
| Preservation of the Act-based calculation argument | Richman maintained Act-based calculation was appropriate | LaChance contends argument was not raised properly below | Waived for lack of timely preservation |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Irizarry, 945 P.2d 676 (Utah 1997) (reimbursement analysis for arrearages under paternity context)
- In re E.R., 21 P.3d 680 (Utah App. 2001) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- Robertson's Marine, Inc. v. I4 Solutions, Inc., 223 P.3d 1141 (Utah App. 2010) (preservation and opportunity to rule on issues at trial)
- State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (invited error doctrine in appellate review)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation and error-raising standards)
- Haynes Land & Livestock Co. v. Jacob Family Chalk Creek, LLC, 233 P.3d 529 (Utah 2010) (statutory interpretation of correct legal standards)