Veysey v. Veysey
2014 UT App 264
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 1999; divorce decree required Father to reimburse Mother for half of "reasonable monthly day care expenses actually paid" incurred because of Mother's employment/occupational training, with reimbursement upon receipt but no time limit for submission of receipts.
- Mother sought reimbursement in 2013 for daycare arrearages from Sept. 2002–June 2006, including claims tied to full-day kindergarten at a private school (Challenger) for part of the period.
- A domestic commissioner limited recovery to preschool expenses April 1, 2005–June 2006, excluding pre-2005 claims and the full-day kindergarten charges, reasoning statute of limitations and laches barred older claims.
- Mother objected; the district court summarily adopted the commissioner’s recommendation. Mother appealed.
- The Court of Appeals found errors in the commissioner’s and district court’s reliance on the general eight-year limitations period and on inadequate findings supporting laches; it also found the exclusion of extended-care portions of full-day kindergarten was improper without further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veysey) | Defendant's Argument (Veysey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for unreduced daycare reimbursement claims | Daycare expenses are child support; use child-support limitations (longer: until 4 years after youngest reaches majority or 8 years from a sum-certain judgment) | Use general 8-year judgment statute of limitations | Daycare expenses are child support; child-support statute of limitations applies, so pre-2005 claims not necessarily time-barred |
| Applicability of laches to pre-2005 claims | Laches does not apply because statute-of-limitations defense controls and plaintiff timely pursued within applicable limits | Laches bars recovery for old claims due to unreasonable delay and prejudice | Reversed: commissioner/district court made no adequate factual findings on unreasonable delay or prejudice; laches cannot be affirmed without specific findings |
| Reimbursement for full-day kindergarten costs | Mother seeks reimbursement for the portion that constitutes extended care (argues one-fourth of tuition) | Father excludes kindergarten tuition entirely as non-daycare private-school expense | Court held extended-care portion may be reimbursable; district court must make findings on how much of full-day kindergarten, if any, is extended-care and thus reimbursable |
| Adequacy of commissioner/district court findings | Findings insufficient to support limitations/laches rulings or exclusion of extended-care costs | Adoption of commissioner’s recommendation was sufficient | Court vacated the order and remanded for specific findings and calculations consistent with statutes and this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes v. Tibbs, 979 P.2d 823 (Utah 1999) (standard: statute-of-limitations questions reviewed for correctness)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 330 P.3d 704 (Utah 2014) (laches is a mixed question of law and fact; factual findings required)
- Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998) (statutory interpretation is reviewed for correctness)
- Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co., 681 P.2d 214 (Utah 1984) (specific statute controls over general when two limitations conflict)
- Borland v. Chandler, 733 P.2d 144 (Utah 1987) (elements of laches: unreasonable delay plus prejudice)
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg, 238 P.3d 1054 (Utah 2010) (laches analysis depends on circumstances; balance delay against prejudice)