107 Cal.App.5th 1258
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Dianne York Goldman (Wife) and Mitchel Paul Goldman (Husband) divorced in 2009 pursuant to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) involving division of stock, tax refunds, patents, royalties, and artwork.
- Years after divorce, Wife sought to enforce the MSA through requests for orders (RFOs) in 2018 and 2020, including a request for attorney’s fees and costs.
- Husband asserted the equitable defense of laches, arguing Wife’s delay in enforcement was unreasonable and prejudicial.
- The trial court found Wife’s claims barred by laches and denied her requests for fees based on this finding.
- Wife appealed, challenging both the applicability of laches to her claims and the sufficiency of evidence supporting a finding of prejudice to Husband due to her delay.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s orders, holding there was insufficient evidence of prejudice, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of laches defense to enforce non-support family law judgments | Laches is only available in enforcing support judgments owed to the State, not in her context | Laches is available in all actions to enforce family court judgments, except personal support judgments not involving the State | Laches is available to defend against non-support judgment enforcement |
| Sufficiency of prejudice evidence for laches | No substantial evidence of Husband's actual prejudice from delay | Delay made evidence unavailable, prejudicing defense | No substantial evidence of actual prejudice at this stage; laches not proven |
| Denial of attorney’s fees based on laches | Fees should not be denied on erroneous laches finding and must consider parties’ financial disparity | Denial was proper because claims were barred and insufficient evidence of fee necessity | Denial of fees was error as it was based on mistaken laches ruling; remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- George v. Shams–Shirazi, 45 Cal.App.5th 134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (explaining elements and application of laches as an equitable defense in family law)
- In re Marriage of Powers, 218 Cal.App.3d 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (describing the required showing for laches: delay, unreasonableness, and prejudice)
- Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center, 27 Cal.3d 614 (Cal. 1980) (burden of proof for prejudice under laches is on the party asserting it and prejudice is never presumed)
- ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 1257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for substantial evidence review)