Medeiros v. Medeiros
2016 Ark. App. 522
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Virginia and Julio Medeiros divorced in California in 1991; the California decree required Julio to pay spousal support to Virginia.
- Virginia later moved to Hawaii; Julio later moved to Arkansas.
- On July 15, 2014, Virginia filed in Arkansas to register the California divorce decree under UIFSA and filed a motion for contempt and an affidavit of arrearage.
- Service on Julio (August 1, 2014) included a summons, a “Notice,” notice of hearing, the registration petition, motion for contempt, and discovery. Julio answered on August 26, 2014, asserting defenses including laches and statute of limitations.
- The circuit court found Julio had not timely followed statutory procedures but nonetheless allowed him to oppose registration and applied laches to bar enforcement of the California support order.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals remanded because two essential documents—the Summons and the statutorily required Notice referenced in the proof of service—are missing from the record; the court ordered the record supplemented and rebriefing after supplementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Virginia) | Defendant's Argument (Julio) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Julio could raise equitable defenses after failing to timely request a hearing under UIFSA registration procedures | Virginia: Julio did not follow statutory procedure and his defenses should be barred; registration should be confirmed | Julio: Although he missed the statutory deadline, the clerk’s Summons and served notice/h earing materials gave him time to respond; equitable defenses are available | Not finally decided — remand ordered to supplement record because the Summons/Notice are missing and are essential to resolving this issue |
| Whether Arkansas or California law governs application of laches to the registered foreign support order | Virginia: California law should govern application of laches to a California decree | Julio: (argued application of equitable defenses; specifics unclear in record) | Not decided — cannot resolve without the missing Notice/Summons to determine proper procedure and choice-of-law application |
| Whether Virginia’s enforcement claim is barred by laches | Virginia: Claim not barred; procedural default by Julio should prevent equitable defenses | Julio: Laches and other defenses bar enforcement of the support order | Not decided — remanded for completion of the record so merits can be reached |
| Whether the record is sufficient for appellate review | Virginia: The addendum must include all essential documents; record here is deficient | (Circuit court treated missing procedural compliance as excused; appellee relied on served documents) | Court held record is deficient; remanded to settle and supplement the record within 30 days and ordered rebriefing |
Key Cases Cited
- None (opinion relies on statutory provisions and found no reported-case authorities cited).