Stover v. Bruntz
C077206
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Eileen Bruntz and respondent Russell Stover share two children; an April 2007 Santa Clara County support order set nondifferentiated support at $1,000/month and included a stipulation treating the amount as including father’s half of childcare and a retroactivity provision tied to cessation of childcare.
- The 2007 order was registered in Placer County after Bruntz moved with the children; parties later moved to Oregon where Bruntz and the children reside.
- From Oct 2007–Jan 2011 Stover paid some but not the full $1,000 most months; after an OSC for contempt filed by Bruntz in Feb 2011, Stover stopped payments and on May 10, 2011 filed a motion to modify support and determine childcare arrears, claiming no childcare since Jan 2007 and asserting the 2007 retroactivity clause.
- Stover served requests for admissions; Bruntz failed to timely respond and the court deemed numerous admissions admitted in Nov 2013 (including that no childcare enrollment/costs existed Jan 2007–Nov 2013); Bruntz did not move to withdraw the deemed admissions.
- After a bench trial, the court: found Stover not in contempt for most partial-payment periods but guilty for six months of total nonpayment; awarded Stover a $441/month childcare credit Jan 2007–May 2011; set support at $490/month (no childcare add-on) Jun 2011–Dec 2012 and $699/month (no childcare add-on) Jan 2013–Nov 2013; imposed $1,250 discovery sanctions on Bruntz. Bruntz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stover) | Defendant's Argument (Bruntz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could award childcare credits for months before May 10, 2011 | Retroactivity clause in 2007 order permitted credits back to children’s cessation of childcare (as stipulated) | Credits from Jan 2007 effectively retroactively modified the 2007 support order before the modification motion was filed, violating Family Code limits | Reversed as to credits before May 10, 2011: retroactive modification may reach back only to filing date of modification motion; credits prior to that exceeded jurisdiction |
| Whether Bruntz is estopped from challenging the 2007 retroactivity clause because she did not timely object/appeal | Argues Murray supports estoppel where party failed to challenge retroactivity condition earlier | Public-policy protecting children’s support and statutory scheme allow collateral attack when order exceeded jurisdiction; estoppel inappropriate here | Not estopped: collateral attack permitted because retroactive modification affecting child support contravenes statutory scheme and public policy |
| Whether the court properly deemed requests for admissions admitted and imposed discovery sanctions | Admissions were properly deemed after Bruntz’s failure to timely respond; sanctions mandatory under CCP §2033.280 | As a pro per litigant she was unfamiliar and should have been allowed to withdraw admissions to prove childcare costs | Affirmed: pro se status doesn’t excuse compliance; no motion to withdraw admissions was filed; sanctions proper |
| Whether childcare add-ons should have been included for Jun 2011–Nov 2013 and whether modification motion should have been dismissed due to Stover’s arrears | Deemed admissions established no childcare costs Jun 2011–Nov 2013; modification motion is procedurally proper despite arrears | Stover’s unpaid arrears and alleged unclean hands should bar him from obtaining modification relief | Affirmed: admissions supported excluding childcare add-ons for that period; mere arrears did not require dismissal of modification motion given partial payments history |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (discusses retroactivity limited to filing date of modification motion)
- In re Marriage of Murray, 101 Cal.App.4th 581 (addresses estoppel where retroactivity reservation not timely challenged)
- In re Marriage of Tavares, 151 Cal.App.4th 620 (rejects disguised retroactive modification; statutory bar to setting aside accrued support)
- In re Marriage of Gruen, 191 Cal.App.4th 627 (retroactive modification before motion exceeded jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Jackson, 136 Cal.App.4th 980 (voiding acts in excess of jurisdiction where public policy concerning children implicated)
- Goodarzirad v. Superior Court, 185 Cal.App.3d 1020 (collateral attack allowed when judgment divested court of ongoing judicial supervision over custody)
- St. Mary v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.4th 762 (matters admitted via requests for admission are conclusively established)
- Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, 21 Cal.4th 973 (standards for withdrawal of deemed admissions)