*1 664 S.E.2d ABLES, Petitioner, Brendalee GLADDEN, Respondent. Michael 26518.
No. Supreme Court of South Carolina. April 2008.
Submitted July Refiled *3 Beeson, Holly Baker, Palmer Bender, Ravenel & Columbia, for Petitioner. Howie, Jr., I.
Newton of Darlington, for Respondent.
Justice WALLER:
In petitioner Brendalee Abies filed the instant action husband, against her former Gladden, respondent Michael seeking reimbursement of medical expenses, health insurance premiums, educational expenses, work-related child care ex and a penses, retroactive increase child support. The family court petitioner awarded in medical expenses, $305.69 and a reimbursement for a health $300 insurance credit given to respondent between and 2005 when he had not actual ly maintained insurance coverage However, for the child. family court denied petitioner’s remaining requests primarily on the basis of affirmed, untimeliness. The Court of Appeals finding properly petitioner’s denied claims Gladden, based on laches. Ables v. Op. No.2006-UP- (S.C. 2006). Ct.App. filed Dec. This Court granted petitioner’s request for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision.1
FACTS petitioner and respondent were divorced in Tokyo, Japan. The Japanese divorce decree awarded sole custody couple’s daughter, who was born on March 1987. Respondent was ordered to pay in the amount of per month from 1992; June 1992 until August $842 month per from September 1992 until respondent sepa- *4 rated from military; and per month thereafter. By $378 1993, respondent petitioner and had both returned to the United States. Respondent Carolina, moved North and petitioner moved to South Carolina. Petitioner enrolled the child in private school in South Carolina.2 Court, Respondent has not filed a brief with the and also did not file a was, however, brief Appeals. at the Court of represented by He private family counsel court level. 2. Petitioner initially daughter testified that she private enrolled her in daughter school because her was used to a small student-teacher ratio an order3 which court issued Carolina
In a North in child per week pay respondent provided $46 for the child when coverage health insurance and provide health The order stated that cost.” at a reasonable “available employ- in if it is reasonable cost defined to be “is insurance addition, In other insurance.” group related or ment health failed to obtain respondent if provided order medical ex- any liable for he would be coverage, incurred. penses (who respondent a certified letter
In sent petitioner Carolina) payment requesting time in South at that lived costs, daycare expenses, medical out-of-pocket support, for the letter Respondent signed educational and respond. did not but of Social Services Department the South Carolina Registration a Notice of
(DSS), filed petitioner, on behalf family in the South Carolina Divorce Decree Japanese court, however, the 1994 North ruled The court. in South register order proper Order was Carolina per pay The court ordered $46 Carolina. week, for arrears. per another week plus of child to the enforcement relating other orders
Several court, including by thereafter issued the amount of increased and decreased orders which readjusted the method of arrearages, amount for weekly set respondent’s expenses, garnished medical and payment wages. the 2002 medical regarding
Specifically following: stated the court order at no cost. [Petition- health insurance provides [Petitioner] for the first of non-covered be responsible will $250.00 er] year. expenses calendar Additional per prorated [between will excess $250.00 by [petitioner]. 27% by [respondent,] 73% respondent:] public Japan, and the Department of Defense schools her larger” classrooms. had “much schools by Agreement Approval “Voluntary Support entitled 3. The order is Enforcing Support Obli- listed as the "Person Court." Petitioner gation.” *5 563 provide proof will within 10 of days [Petitioner] incurred. being [Respondent] days pay will have 30 to the costs. 2005,
In respondent filed a motion to terminate ongoing based the child support upon reaching age majority. At 2005, all times 1998 and March petitioner between had been 30, from At represented by attorneys DSS. the March hearing, petitioner raised issues regarding reimbursement for medical expenses, daycare and health expenses, insurance order, coverage. April its court family found these issues not properly they were raised because “not Nevertheless, the assignment within or duties of’ DSS. “reserved” the resolution of those issues “for a own,” i.e., hearing future on her in a separate action brought by petitioner. The ongoing terminated 29, 2005, as of March support because of the turning $6,812.31 respondent but ordered to continue paying the $101.79, at a weekly arrears rate of until paid full.
In June petitioner against filed instant action (1) respondent specifically requested, which inter alia: retroactive increase in child for the of time period from 1998 until 2002 respondent’s based on failure to report (2) increases in salary; reimbursement medical various health premiums, day- work-related (3) care expenses; and increased child through 2005 based on an improper given credit for health premiums.4 care 18, 2005,
A held on hearing was October which claimed she payments was owed for various un-reimbursed medical, daycare and educational expenses during incurred minority. child’s With the of one exception expense adjustment for a root canal and an because of the health care credit improperly given respondent, court denied untimely petitioner’s as requests pay- various for retroactive ments. petitioner's complaint,
4. We note that in she asserted that she "consent- [respondent's] ed to motion to file a new action to address the unre- April solved issues in the 2005 Order as well as other matters requested by [petitioner] provide [respondent] in order with an opportunity respond.” Respondent allegation admitted this in his answer. held that “the record Appeals On appeal, *6 peti- that laches” barred court’s decision supports of noted Appeals peti- claims. Specifically, tioner’s any adjudicatory proceeding formal bring tioner “failed to 2005, despite believing [respondent] until against [respondent] since 1994.” The expenses support responsible was petitioner’s delay further found that Appeals Court of unreasonable, respondent in were part because 1999 and 2005 multiple proceedings in court between “involved surrounding [respondent’s] regarding issues of found Finally, Appeals respondent the Court payments.” “large for the prejudiced by petitioner’s request would $26,995.39. amount” of
ISSUES in v. Strick- light opinion 1. In of this Court’s Strickland land, 76, (2007), longer 465 is laches no 375 S.C. 650 S.E.2d order for child defense when there is viable support? petitioner’s of err in Appeals finding
2. Did the Court private claims for childcare and school by barred the doctrine of laches? err in not Appeals awarding petitioner
3. Did the Court of for health improper given for the credit premiums?
DISCUSSION of Review Standard court, juris
In from the this Court has appeals in of the diction to find facts accordance with its own view Wooten, E.g., of the Wooten v. 364 preponderance evidence. (2005). 532, 540, 98, scope 102 This broad S.C. 615 S.E.2d not, however, require appellate does review of the court. v. Thoma disregard findings Cherry (1981). son, 524, 525, 541, 280 541 276 S.C. S.E.2d Strickland Strickland Strickland, In 650 S.E.2d Strickland v. S.C. (2007), is not a defense to a claim for we held that laches alimony the enforcement of an argues award. Petitioner the ruling logically Strickland extends to the enforcement a child agree.5 order. We is an equitable Laches doctrine defined as an “neglect for unexplained length time, unreasonable and under circum- affording stances do opportunity diligence, to what in law Hallums, should been have done.” Hallums v. (1988). 371 S.E.2d “Whether claima is barred
by
case,
laches is to be
light
determined in
of facts of each
taking into consideration
delay
injury,
whether the
has worked
or
prejudice,
disadvantage to
other party; delay
alone
assertion of a right
198-99,
does not constitute laches.” Id. at
barred the claim mother’s In support. retroactive child case, however, that there had no adjudicated been divorce and no court-ordered support. child The mother first raised the counterclaim, issue of support child as a 22 years some after the divorce, father had first at petitioned for a and a time after the child had the age reached of majority. Strickland, however,
In the had before it Court a case which a family involved court awarding alimony. order The adopted Court the of reasoning Pilot Ins. v.Co. Jefferson Life Gum, 8, (1990), 302 S.C. S.E.2d 393 180 found a which where obligation, court order fixed an the doctrine of laches not could applied obligation. undo the the Exporting Jefferson analysis context, Pilot alimony the the Strickland Court stated the following:
In opinion, our reasoning this Court’s in is Pilot Jefferson to a equally applicable alimony. of award the Although equitable nature of laches generally comports equitable jurisdiction with the court’s in determining and support maintenance former spouses, between the con- cept delay” of “inexcusable in the laches defense is inconsis- tent judicial with the inherent in a authority court order. awarding support Because orders do maintenance date, not an expiration have a allowing party avoid compliance solely based on the of oblique delay only notion recognize Appeals 5. We of was decided in December eight some months before this in Court’s decision Strickland.
566 of court. See also authority
serves to undermine Hamrick, N.C.App. v. 358 S.E.2d Stephens [86 (1987)] of does not bar (holding that the doctrine laches “the because support of a court order for enforcement a is continuous support therefore] to furnish obligation [and be a to commencement of an of time will not bar lapse action.”). that is we hold laches Accordingly, enforcement alimony to a of an not a defense claim the enforcement award.
Strickland, 83-84, at 469-70. 375 S.C. S.E.2d reasoning Strickland agree
We with force to cases apply equal Pilot with should Jefferson Strickland, order. we cited involving support a child North mother Carolina case involved a Carolina North which Carolina child order. See trying support enforce South Hamrick, The North supra. v. Carolina Court Stephens clearly support obligation held that because the Appeals continuous, apply does not to bar doctrine laches Id.; also of a child order. see South enforcement Lowman, 41, 48, Dep’t Soc. Servs. Carolina (1977) (the is a duty of child continu S.E.2d obligation). ing apply the doctrine of laches does not
Accordingly, claims for retroactive child petitioner’s instant case to expenses.6 and medical premiums, health insurance the Strickland Court disallowed laches in cases Although order, it involving alimony equitable an nevertheless held *8 apply. explained The Court that estoppel equitable could judi- equity balances of and estoppel “appropriately principles facts of a case call into authority underlying cial when the Strickland, enforcing of a court order.” question equity the at The outlined the at 470. S.E.2d of as estoppel elements the claim follows: various The of as related to the equitable estoppel party elements (1) false are: conduct which amounts a being estopped daycare acknowledges that her for and 6. Petitioner because claims order, subject prior never the of a the educational analysis apply requests. She does not to those instead Strickland applying argues Appeals of erred in the laches doctrine to the Court issue those claims. See infra. representation, or conduct convey calculated to which impression than, facts are and inconsis- otherwise with, tent party those which the subsequently attempts assert; (2) the intention that such conduct be shall acted (3) upon by party; the other actual or and constructive knowledge asserting of the real facts. The party estoppel (1) must show: lack of and knowledge, the means knowl- (2) edge, of the truth as to the in question; facts reliance (3) upon the conduct of the party estopped; prejudi- and cial change position reliance on the conduct party being estopped.
Id. 84-85, at at S.E.2d
Petitioner asserts there is no should evidence she from equitably estopped respondent’s enforcing court-ordered obligations health regarding premiums, medical ex and penses, retroactive child support. agree. We record, As evidenced by numerous orders peti- consistently pursued tioner for respondent support child and medical expenses. Her claims at least go as far back as 1997 she when sent a certified to respondent letter demanding order, expenses. various The 1994 North Carolina which made respondent responsible for child and health support registered was in South Carolina insurance/medical (1) in 1998. The record also a 2002 reveals: order which set week, per arrears, plus per week for $102 $20 and also set out the formula for respondent’s above-discussed (2) obligations medical regarding a 2003 order expenses; week, reduced the child support obligation per which to $62 (3) arrears; plus and order which increased $20 week, child support per plus arrears. $81.79 The evidence therefore is undeniable never made any or representations assurances he responsible not for the obligations regarding court-ordered Thus, child support and medical expenses. petitioner is not equitably her estopped asserting claims retro- regarding insurance, active health Support A. Child Retroactive
“The decision to order within retroactive rests sound discretion of the not family should be re- *9 the court.” by family of discretion an abuse
versed absent 86, Thornton, 96, 115, 492 v. 328 S.C. S.E.2d Thornton (1997). Furthermore, “empowered the is proper showing upon change of a modify support financial parent’s or the supporting either the child’s needs Henderson, 196, 190, v. 298 S.C. ability.” Henderson added). (1989) 125, seeking The party (emphasis S.E.2d circum- changed the has the burden to show modification 16, 26, 624 S.E.2d Upchurch Upchurch, v. 367 S.C. stances. (2006). 643, 648
Here,
therefore
court relied on laches and
our
on the facts.
opinion,
did not make
decision
does
hearing simply
at the
presented by petitioner
evidence
and there
support,
not
her claim for retroactive child
support
fore,
of retroactive child
Woo
support.
affirm
denial
we
Wooten,
(in
court,
this
supra
appeals
ten v.
own
of the
find
in accordance with its
view
may
facts
evidence).
preponderance
was
at
hearing
Petitioner
testified
per
more
his reported
at least ten
than
making
percent
that when the child
month
1994 and
between
“income had
significantly
increased
his
time
received
[a]
increased over
last
[she]
However,
the record
our review of
reveals
increase.”
not
assumptions
by
these
made
which were
petitioner
are
Therefore,
peti-
find
by any specific evidence.7
we
supported
for a retroactive
carry
proof
tioner failed to
her burden of
Upchurch Upchurch,
in child
support.
increase
Cf.
in-
testimony
(“general
regarding
The ordered respondent pay petitioner of the root canal expense based on $305.69 the formula set out in the 2002 order.8 Curiously, petitioner not, in any has of the subsequent filings, Moreover, even mentioned this award. respondent has not submitted at any filings either appellate level, so this award is the law of the E.g., case. Ex parte Morris, 56, 65, (2006) (an 624 S.E.2d 653-54 case). unappealed ruling is law of the Thus, only is remaining issue whether is entitled to be reimbursed for monies spent for health insur ance premiums. We find she is not. The 1994 North Carolina order specified that respondent provide was to health insur ance coverage for the child when “available at a reasonable cost,” and defined that to mean health insurance that “is related employment or other group insurance.” Significantly, however, this order also provided that if respondent failed to obtain health insurance coverage, he would be liable any incurred. Given that there was never a required court order in place absolutely respondent insurance, pay for health petitioner cannot claim now she must be reimbursed for those costs. sum, we hold the doctrine of apply laches does not
petitioner’s claims for retroactive child support and medical therefore, related it expenses; was error to bar these claims Moreover, on that basis. we find petitioner is not equitably estopped However, these pursuing claims. on the mer- its, petitioner failed to her carry burden of proof she was entitled to either a retroactive increase in child or reimbursement for health care premiums paid between 1994 Thus, and 2005. Appeals’ Court of decision upholding family court’s denial of particular these claims affirmed as modified. $250, responsible respondent Petitioner was for the first and then responsible for of the 73% remainder. Expenses and Private School
2. Childcare claims her additional that as to argues next Petitioner Ap the Court school private childcare and merits, these that laches bars on the finding, erred peals claims.9 an unreasonable if there is may be established
Laches claim. Hallums legal delay asserting unexplained In order 198-99, at 527-28. Hallums, 371 S.E.2d S.C. laches, the burden is on affirmative defense prove (2) (1) delay, unreasonable delay, to establish into the (3) inquiry appli- Additionally, Id. “[t]he prejudice. *11 and each case must fact-specific highly of laches is cability Smith, 207, Emery merits.” judged by its own 598, 216, (Ct.App.2004). 602 603 S.E.2d alleged delay pursuing that her Petitioner asserts Ac unexplained. nor neither unreasonable these claims was these seeking that DSS was to she believed cording petitioner, as acting time it was throughout the on her behalf expenses actions. Upon enforcement attorney for the child her 30, 2005, hearing court at the March family from the learning requests, petitioner to these present unable that she was action on June and filed the instant counsel private retained or Thus, delay, there no maintains was 23, petitioner 2005.10 least, delay. or unreasonable unexplained not an very at the claims not appears it these Although agree. We 2005, the record to family prior asserted in the formally at as was petitioner at least as far back that shows expenses. educational collect childcare and tempting Cf Holden, 319 459 Soc. Servs.v. S.C. Dep’t Carolina South (1995) (where continually asked father mother S.E.2d for lach delay established no unreasonable pay es). Moreover, 2005 order reflects family April court’s pursue in a these capacity petitioner believed DSS child- expenses, the costs for and 9. Unlike basic subject a court order. private were never the care and school Therefore, applicable, analysis directly is not the Strickland may apply. defense laches section, family April supra, the court's in the Facts 10. As recounted "re- petitioner’s other issues were specifically stated that 2005 order hearing. at a future and would be addressed served” her, Thus, it agency claims for fact that when was not. we reverse the of Appeals’ holding petitioner Court unrea- sonably delayed bringing a claim for the legal past childcare educational merits,
On the did any not make factual findings regarding petitioner’s claims for related to (“An 26(a), childcare and private school. See Rule SCRFC adjudication order or judgment pursuant to an domestic relations case set specific shall forth the fact and findings of decision.”). conclusions of to support law the court’s As to the claim for school private court denied the request based on laches and legal conclusion that “absent extremely circumstances, unusual this require Court does not non-custodial parents pay for school private costs.” tuition,
On the issue private school we find turn our cases case, on the facts of necessarily each not “extremely unusual See, Rabon, e.g., Rabon v. circumstances.” S.C. (1986) (where
S.E.2d 605 ordered an increase in child support private to cover school costs after mother moved from Florence to Columbia and decided to enroll the four Hall). Thus, children at Heathwood court should evaluate this claim on the presented. facts
Accordingly, a necessary remand is on the issue of whether any entitled to be reimbursed portion *12 of the childcare and private school incurred during the minority. child’s
3. Health Insurance Premium Credit level,
At family the court petitioner alleged respondent was credited for health paying premiums insurance between 2003 and fact actually 2005 when in he did not provide coverage for the child. court family The therefore found the following: Guidelines, to the South Child
According Support Carolina if the credit for the for the premium is removed period of in question, time should have been [respondent] paying actually week rather than the he was $67.00 $62 paying. payments made Sixty during this and period, [respondent] required therefore [peti- will reimburse tioner] $300.00. however, contends, respondent’s that because
Petitioner month, she adjusted by per support obligation $44 for the 60 weekly payments, received back for should have $11 of a total $660.00. the court calculated family correctly find the
We that shows Although the child worksheet amount. for a health insur indeed credited with respondent was his total necessarily it premium, ance does not follow The the amount. thereby by reduced same obligation was did correctly petitioner’s claim noted Appeals child support guidelines. not at all appropriate reference (Supp.2007). §§ 114-4710 & 114-4720 Regs. See S.C. Ann. and correctly addressed this issue family Because the affirmed, no this issue. there is error on Appeals the Court of
CONCLUSION modified, as part, petitioner’s We affirm in denial insurance, support, health regarding claims retroactive petitioner’s private and As to claims childcare, that these school costs and reverse decision we are laches remand to the by claims barred Finally, the merits. we affirm the Court resolution on correctly that the calculated award Appeals’ holding credited with resulting respondent being improperly and 2005. premiums health insurance between 2003 paying MODIFIED; IN AFFIRMED IN PART REVERSED AS PART AND REMANDED.
TOAL, C.J., MOORE, J., concur.
PLEICONES, J.,
in a
concurring
separate opinion.
concurring:
Justice PLEICONES
on the issue
by
majority
I concur in the result reached
I
of child
but I
because as
stated
separately
write
Strickland,
should
be precluded
the defense of laches
not
of a
court order.
simply
continuing
because of
existence
Thus, I
court’s
that laches bars
finding
would affirm
*13
premiums, petitioner’s claims for health insurance
and childcare/school
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that petitioner did not
meet her burden in proving she was entitled to retroactive
However,
child support.
I would hold that
laches and other
equitable defenses may prevent a parent from collecting retro-
active child support, even when interposed against an existing
court order.
I recognize that
equitable
these
defenses should
not apply,
circumstances,
absent extraordinary
when enforce-
ment of child support
is sought on behalf of the minor child.
Cook,
See
v.
(1983) (a
Garris
I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion its entirety.
Appellant/Respondent.
No. 26508. Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Nov. 2007.
Decided June 2008. Rehearing July Denied