Lovejoy v. Poole
230 So. 3d 164
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lovejoy and Poole, never married, had two children; Lovejoy was designated primary residential parent in 1997.
- 1997 order: Poole to pay child support and existing arrearages; 2001 order reaffirmed arrearages, ongoing support until children reached 18, and contribution to Lovejoy’s attorney’s fees.
- Poole conceded she failed to comply with the child support and arrearage orders.
- In 2016 Lovejoy moved for civil contempt/enforcement alleging no payments since 1997 and that Poole concealed contact/employment information.
- Trial court denied the motion without a hearing, citing Pyne v. Black and concluding "Lack of Standing," and summarily denied reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to enforce arrearages | Lovejoy: entitled to enforce pre-majority child support arrears by contempt | Poole (as applied by trial court): lack of standing per Pyne | Court: Standing is not lacking for pre-majority arrears; Pyne addressed post-majority arrears only |
| Denial without evidentiary hearing | Lovejoy: contempt/enforcement requires a hearing to adjudicate defenses and facts | Trial court: relied on Pyne and denied without hearing (implying laches/equitable estoppel) | Court: Reversed — denying on laches/equitable estoppel without hearing was error |
| Applicability of laches/equitable estoppel | Lovejoy: enforcement claim should be adjudicated; defenses must be proven, not presumed | Poole: delay and conduct may bar relief (laches/equitable estoppel) | Court: These are affirmative defenses requiring proof and, if asserted, an evidentiary hearing to show prejudice or clear-and-convincing evidence |
| Proper remedy on remand | Lovejoy: request contempt/enforcement hearing for arrearages and fees | Poole: opportunity to assert defenses and present evidence | Held: Reverse and remand for evidentiary proceedings to determine defenses and enforcement relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyne v. Black, 650 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (addressed denial of contempt to collect post-majority child support and discussed laches/equitable estoppel)
- Gibson v. Bennett, 561 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1990) (judgment for support arrearages enforceable after child reaches majority)
- Jackmore v. Jackmore, 71 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (laches is an affirmative defense requiring factual proof)
- Bethea v. Langford, 45 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1949) (historic discussion of laches principles)
- Bishop v. Bishop, 858 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (defendant must show prejudice from plaintiff’s delay to establish laches)
- Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (equitable estoppel must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Watson Clinic, LLP v. Verzosa, 816 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (discussing standard for establishing equitable estoppel)