Webb v. Webb
2012 S.D. 41
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Kathy and Anthony Webb divorced in 1985; divorce decree required Anthony to pay $250/month child support.
- Payments were to be made through Butte County Clerk of Courts; DSS initially collected and applied payments toward TANF arrearages.
- Before 1991 Anthony paid the full TANF arrearage; in 1991 Kathy requested no DSS enforcement and resumed directing payments through the clerk, but payments after 1991 were minimal.
- By the child’s 18th birthday, Anthony’s unpaid arrears totaled $36,917.56 per DSS calculations.
- In 2011 Kathy sought to reduce the unpaid support to a money judgment; hearing held, Anthony testified telephonically but did not testify on his own behalf.
- Circuit Court found unpaid arrears existed and, with pre-judgment interest, entered a judgment over $71,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden shifting in proving unpaid support | Kathy established the obligation and nonpayment under SDCL 25-7-7.4. | Anthony contends the court shifted burden to prove nonpayment to him. | No improper burden shifting; evidence sufficed to establish obligation and nonpayment. |
| Judicial estoppel | Kathy’s 1992 bankruptcy did not list the obligation as an asset, but she should be able to claim it now. | Bankruptcy position inconsistent with now asserting unpaid obligation; estoppel should apply. | Judicial estoppel not applied; no unfair detriment to Anthony shown. |
| Laches | Delay does not bar action here because statutory remedy exists to reduce to judgment. | Unreasonable delay and prejudice should bar relief under laches. | Laches not proven; delay alone does not establish prejudice; no bar to relief. |
| Statute of limitations applicability | 20-year statute applies to reduce unpaid obligations to judgment. | Delay should be barred by SOL as to older arrears. | 20-year statute applied; does not bar proper reduction where timely actions were taken to collect. |
| New trial denial and sufficiency of evidence | New trial requested on irregularity, insufficient evidence, and pro se status. | Would present evidence if allowed; pro se status should not excuse procedural missteps. | No abuse of discretion; evidence supported obligation, and new trial denial was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canyon Lake Park, L.L.C. v. Loftus Dental, P.C., 2005 SD 82 (S.D. 2005) (judicial estoppel elements and inconsistent positions discussed)
- Culhane v. Michels, 615 N.W.2d 580 (S.D. 2000) (laches and timing considerations in equity-related claims)
- Fechner v. Case, 660 N.W.2d 631 (S.D. 2003) (definition of irregularity in court proceedings)
- Stockwell v. Stockwell, 790 N.W.2d 52 (S.D. 2010) (credibility and weighing witness testimony)
- Ferebee v. Hobart, 776 N.W.2d 58 (S.D. 2009) (pro se status and trial fairness considerations)