Veysey v. Nelson
397 P.3d 846
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (Alexis Nelson) sought reimbursement from Father (Andrew Veysey) for daycare expenses incurred 2002–2006; claim was filed in 2013.
- A commissioner largely denied the claim, finding laches and statute-of-limitations issues for pre-2005 expenses; district court affirmed after remand.
- On prior appeal this court held variable daycare expenses constitute child support and that the statute of limitations did not bar pre-2005 claims; it left open that laches might equitably bar recovery if supported by findings.
- On remand the district court found Mother unreasonably delayed notification and suit, and that Father was prejudiced by the delay; it barred most pre‑April 2005 recovery.
- Mother argued laches cannot bar a legal claim timely under the statute of limitations and that her delay caused no prejudice; the court rejected both contentions.
- A concurring judge would instead affirm under Utah Code § 78B‑12‑214 (failure to notify other parent within 30 days), which authorizes denial of recovery for noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can laches be applied to bar a child-support (variable daycare) claim that is timely under the statute of limitations? | Laches is precluded for legal claims that are timely; statute of limitations governs. | Laches may apply in equity even if a statute of limitations exists or has not run. | Court: Laches may apply; existence of a statute of limitations does not automatically preclude laches. |
| Was Mother’s delay in bringing the claim unreasonable? | Delay was reasonable because suit was within the statutory limitations period. | Delay was unreasonable; Mother failed to notify Father timely as required by law and waited over a decade for some expenses. | Court: Delay was unreasonable; district court’s factual findings supporting that conclusion were adequate. |
| Did Mother’s delay prejudice Father? | No — delay did not impede proving amounts owed; laches protects only defendants made worse off litigating late claims. | Yes — passage of time degraded evidence, accounting was unclear, Father lost opportunity to object or seek cheaper childcare. | Court: Prejudice established (difficulty verifying claims, lost opportunity to contest/mitigate); district court findings adequate. |
| Alternatively, could recovery be barred under Utah Code § 78B‑12‑214 (failure to notify change in childcare expense)? (concurring ground) | N/A before this court on main opinion | Father points to statutory notice requirement; failure may bar recovery. | Concurrence: Would affirm on this statutory ground — Mother failed to notify within 30 days, permitting denial of recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veysey v. Veysey, 339 P.3d 131 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (prior appeal holding variable daycare expenses are child support and statute of limitations did not bar pre‑2005 claims)
- Insight Assets, Inc. v. Farias, 321 P.3d 1021 (Utah 2013) (doctrine of laches may apply in equity whether or not a statute of limitations applies)
- DOIT, Inc. v. Touche, Ross & Co., 926 P.2d 835 (Utah 1996) (discussed limits on laches where claims are legal in nature)
- Borland v. Chandler, 733 P.2d 144 (Utah 1987) (equitable defenses may be applied in actions at law)
- Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572 (Utah 1993) (statutes of limitation necessarily allow a reasonable time to file; relied on by Mother but distinguished by court)