210 A.3d 148
D.C.2019Background
- Massey was ordered to pay $450/month in child support in a 1985 divorce; youngest child emancipated on Oct. 30, 1999, making the last installment due by that date.
- By 2014 arrears totaled about $49,000. The District intercepted federal tax refunds and later withheld portions of Massey’s SSDI for support enforcement.
- Massey filed pro se motions in 2007 and 2012 to terminate/modify obligations (denied); filed additional motions in 2014 (one pro se noting "statute of limitations," then with counsel asserting limitations defense).
- The trial court granted Massey’s 2014 motion, concluding the 12-year enforcement period under D.C. Code § 15-101 had run (i.e., judgments for each installment expired by Oct. 30, 2011) and vacated all arrears.
- Pope Massey appealed, raising waiver/claim-preclusion, renewal/revival of the judgments by prior proceedings, the nullum tempus doctrine, and a statutory non-lapse provision for withholding orders.
Issues
| Issue | Pope Massey’s Argument | Massey’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver / preclusion of statute‑of‑limitations defense | Massey failed to timely raise limitations in 2007/2012 motions; therefore barred | He timely asserted it in an affirmative 2014 motion; earlier filings were pro se and did not require responsive pleading | Court: No waiver/forfeiture; raising limitations in the 2014 motion was permitted (no substantial prejudice) |
| Renewal / revival of judgments by prior denials | Denials of 2007/2012 motions (or acknowledgments) renewed the judgments and restarted the 12‑yr clock | Revival requires explicit order of revival or tolling; prior denials made no revival/order and did not restart limitations | Court: No renewal/restart; absent an order of revival or tolling, each installment judgment expired 12 years after accrual |
| Nullum tempus occurrit regi (sovereign immunity from statutes of limitations) | The District’s involvement (withholdings) means the sovereign’s immunity should prevent limitations from barring collection | This is a private dispute between ex‑spouses; the District is not asserting sovereign immunity here | Court: Doctrine inapplicable — not a suit by the sovereign and Pope Massey cannot invoke it for the District |
| Effect of withholding orders (D.C. Code § 46‑215) | Withholding orders issued within 12 years prevent lapse of enforcement | Withholdings must be active when the limitations period expired to prevent lapse; record shows SSDI withholding began after limitations ran | Court: No proof a withholding order remained in effect through Oct. 30, 2011; §46‑215 does not save the expired judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayo v. Mayo, 508 A.2d 114 (explaining each support installment becomes a separate judgment)
- Lomax v. Spriggs, 404 A.2d 943 (same: periodic support payments mature into separate money judgments)
- Butler v. Butler, 496 A.2d 621 (child support in D.C. continues until age 21)
- Jasper v. Carter, 451 A.2d 46 (judgment revival required within limitations or judgment ceases to have effect)
- Feldman v. Gogos, 628 A.2d 103 (statute‑of‑limitations defense ordinarily must be affirmatively asserted)
- Whitener v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 505 A.2d 457 (waiver doctrine should be applied flexibly; avoid strict forfeiture where no prejudice)
- District of Columbia v. Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp., 572 A.2d 394 (discussing nullum tempus occurrit regi and sovereign immunity)
- Michael v. Smith, 221 F.2d 59 (order of revival requires clear language of intent)