Marriage of Parker
E064236
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Matthew and Mary divorced in 1990; Mary received primary physical custody and Matthew was ordered to pay $137 per child per month in support.\
- Matthew alleges the children lived with him from February 1993 until majority and he received no support from Mary.\
- In 2007 Matthew sought a judicial determination of arrears; the Department conceded Trainotti credits might apply but the family court denied Matthew Trainotti credits, finding he wrongfully kept the children from Mary (unclean hands).\
- In 2014 Matthew again sought (1) an accounting from the Department and (2) Trainotti credits (and alternatively argued laches to discharge arrears), presenting additional evidence he says shows Mary knew his Oregon address earlier.\
- The Department argued collateral estoppel/res judicata and unclean hands barred relitigation; it also argued laches did not apply to discharge amounts owed to the county. The family court denied relief.\
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of entitlement to Trainotti credits and that laches cannot be asserted offensively by the petitioner (and Matthew failed to show prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Trainotti credits for period children lived with Matthew | Matthew: children lived with him from 1993 to majority so he should receive Trainotti equitable credits against arrears | Department/Mary: issue already decided in 2007; Matthew had unclean hands so no equitable relief | Denied: collateral estoppel applies; 2007 hearing necessarily decided Trainotti/unclean-hands issues and is final on the merits |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies despite Matthew not using the term "Trainotti credits" in 2007 | Matthew: he sought discharge of arrears as sole provider even if term not used | Department: substance controls; same issue litigated | Denied: substance of relief was the same, so estoppel applies |
| Whether laches can be used by Matthew offensively to discharge arrears owed to the Department | Matthew: Department delayed enforcement for years; laches should bar collection by county for its portion | Department: laches is a defensive doctrine and, in any event, it acted to collect starting 2008 | Denied: laches is a defense (shield not sword); petitioner may not use it offensively |
| If laches could apply, whether Matthew proved it (delay, inexcusable, prejudice) | Matthew: Department’s long nonenforcement prejudiced him (interest accrued) | Department: any interest accrued because Matthew stopped paying; no causal prejudice shown from county delay | Denied: even assuming delay, Matthew failed to prove prejudice caused by the Department’s inaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Trainotti v. 212 Cal.App.3d 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (trial court has equitable discretion to grant credits/relief where parent had sole physical custody).\
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990) (elements and application of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion).\
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided).\
- Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., 59 Cal.4th 407 (Cal. 2014) (unclean hands is an equitable defense requiring fair conduct by party seeking relief).