STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AND DONNA LEMASTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
JACKIE LEMASTER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this URESA child support enforcement case, the trial court reduced arrearages owed by the appellee from $14,900 to $5,500, finding laches applied to the pre-1987 period. The appellate court reversed, holding that laches is an improper defense to child support obligations and that the appellee failed to establish valid grounds for reduction.
The appellate court held that laches cannot be used as a defense to child support obligations because the mere passage of time is insufficient to establish laches in child support cases. The court also held that visitation rights and child support obligations are unrelated, and inability to exercise visitation does not relieve a parent from paying child support.
[1] The mere passage of time is insufficient to establish the affirmative defense of laches in an action for child support arrearages.
[2] Inability to exercise visitation rights does not relieve a noncustodial parent from the obligation to pay child support.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In an action for child support, the mere passage of time is not sufficient to give rise to a defense of laches.”
Establishes the legal principle that laches cannot be used as a defense in child support cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 1989, the appellants sought to enforce a 1976 Kentucky divorce decree requiring the appellee to pay child support and $14,900 in arrearages…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Laches Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In October of 1989 the appellants brought an action against the appellee under URESA for child support. The action sought relief for ongoing child support and for arrearages in the amount of $14,900 accruing under a 1976 Kentucky divorce decree. The trial court entered an order finding that there was an arrearage in the amount of $14,900, but reducing the appel-lee’s obligation for that amount to $5,500. We reverse.
In the trial court the appellee filed a responsive pleading titled “Answer/Affirmative Defense” in which he asserted the affirmative defense of laches. The appel-lee alleged that he had not heard from, seen, or had any contact with his ex-wife since January 2,1977. He further asserted that this 12-year delay in seeking to enforce the arrearages clearly prejudiced him; that he was unable to exercise visitation through no fault of his own; and that the 12-year accumulation of arrearages now constitutes an intolerable lump sum for him to shoulder. The trial court found as a matter of fact that the appellee had knowledge of the whereabouts of his child from January 1, 1987, through March 23, 1991. Thus the trial court found the appellee obligated for arrearages in the amount of $5,500 allocable to that period. We find that the appel-lee failed to establish any valid basis to relieve him from the remaining obligation of $9,400.
The appellee failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches under the test set forth in Van Meter v. Kelsey, 91 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1956). In an action for child support, the mere passage of time is not sufficient to give rise to a defense of laches. Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The Florida legislature has made it clear that visitation rights and the obligation to provide child support are unrelated and that the inability to exercise visitation rights does not relieve the noncustodial parent from the obligation to pay child support. § 61.13(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991); § 88.271, Fla.Stat. (1991).
During the period when the appellee did not know of his child’s whereabouts, it would have been a simple matter for him to simply set aside each child support payment as it became due. Had he done so, he would not now find the 12-year accumulation of arrearages to constitute an intolerable lump sum for him to shoulder. We reverse and remand with directions to enter a final order finding the appellee obligated for payment of $14,900 in arrearages as claimed by the appellants in this action.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ne of laches to prove prejudice. See Stephenson v. Stephenson, 52 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1951); State, Dept. of Revenue By and on Behalf of Taylor v. David, 684 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Lemaster, 596 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In the context of child support arrearage cases, the defense of laches is only applied in extraordinary circumstances where the facts clearly show extreme prejudice. See State, Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Dees v. Retro, 765 So. 2d…
-
Doyle E. Dean v. Dean, 665 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ly support; had he simply set aside each child support payment as it became due, “he would not now find the ... accumulation of arrear-ages to constitute an intolerable lump sum for him to shoulder.” Department of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). I would affirm. . The father's extravagant wedding gifts to his son should not excuse his many years of financial neglect. See Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (extra funds sent to family as gifts…
-
State v. Sandidge, 651 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…order of the trial court cancelling support is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. HRS notes further that the obligation to provide child support is unrelated to the right of visitation, State of Florida, Department of HRS v. Lemaster, 596 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and, as a result, the lower court acted inappropriately in denying child support as a remedy to the failure to accord visitation. Finally, HRS argues that the order on the motion to vacate is erroneous because the lower court err…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- VAN Meter v. Edward L. Kelsey and his wife, 91 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1956)
- Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)