Defense of Laches Florida Support

[brokeandhappy12]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FLA

Divorced in 2002 within the State Of Georgia. Ex-Wife deemed primary custodian with shared custody. Ex-wife Income was excluded and not counted in determining support. 2002 GA Order was Domesticated into Florida Orderin 2002. Order required stated dollar $2000 per month Child Support, plus 10% (Bonus Payments) of GROSS annual income over $75k as one time yearly payment in Feb following year end (bonus not administered by State). Order was for 3 children. In 2007 GA went to Shared support model. Counting Income of spouse in computation of support payment. Ex-Husband did not seek modification of support until 2011, regardless of fact that 2 children were over 18 in 2008 and 2009. Therefore Ex Husband over payed support in 2008 and 2009. Court found that 10% bonus payments were not in line with Florida Child Support regs and denied all future collection, ordering child support on one child. Ex wife did not receive bonus payments in years 2007,2008,2009 and subsequently filed in 2011 order of Contempt and Motion to Show Cause seeking bonus payments for 2007,2008,2009. Former Husband has limited means and demonstrated almost zero assets. Judgement could be in excess of $25k.

In this Case a Defense of Laches is preferred by the Former Husband. Ex- Wife "slept on rights" and former order was based on GA law that excluded ex-wifes income setting up an "equal protection 14th Amendment" violation. "Those changes must have occurred in the meantime a change in conditions that would render it inequitable to enforce the right asserted."Gardiner, 705 So.2d at 1020 (internal citations omitted). Because 2 out 3 children are over 18 and emancipated Child Support requested would not benefit the majority of children above 18.

Question would the Change in the GA Support Formula in 2007 demonstrate that the person sought to be held liable is injured or prejudiced by the delay?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FLA

Divorced in 2002 within the State Of Georgia. Ex-Wife deemed primary custodian with shared custody. Ex-wife Income was excluded and not counted in determining support. 2002 GA Order was Domesticated into Florida Orderin 2002. Order required stated dollar $2000 per month Child Support, plus 10% (Bonus Payments) of GROSS annual income over $75k as one time yearly payment in Feb following year end (bonus not administered by State). Order was for 3 children. In 2007 GA went to Shared support model. Counting Income of spouse in computation of support payment. Ex-Husband did not seek modification of support until 2011, regardless of fact that 2 children were over 18 in 2008 and 2009. Therefore Ex Husband over payed support in 2008 and 2009. Court found that 10% bonus payments were not in line with Florida Child Support regs and denied all future collection, ordering child support on one child. Ex wife did not receive bonus payments in years 2007,2008,2009 and subsequently filed in 2011 order of Contempt and Motion to Show Cause seeking bonus payments for 2007,2008,2009. Former Husband has limited means and demonstrated almost zero assets. Judgement could be in excess of $25k.

In this Case a Defense of Laches is preferred by the Former Husband. Ex- Wife "slept on rights" and former order was based on GA law that excluded ex-wifes income setting up an "equal protection 14th Amendment" violation. "Those changes must have occurred in the meantime a change in conditions that would render it inequitable to enforce the right asserted."Gardiner, 705 So.2d at 1020 (internal citations omitted). Because 2 out 3 children are over 18 and emancipated Child Support requested would not benefit the majority of children above 18.

Question would the Change in the GA Support Formula in 2007 demonstrate that the person sought to be held liable is injured or prejudiced by the delay?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

I do not believe that enough time has passed for laches to be a viable defense. As far as making constitutional arguments that should have been done in an appeal in 2002. Its far too late for that now. This is also not an emancipated child support request. This is arrears for payments that should have been made over the last 4 years.

In my opinion to have any hope of success, you would need the help of an attorney, and even that would be a long shot.

 

[tranquility]

Latches is an equitable defense. How were you harmed by the other party slumbering on their rights?

The money was owed. I don't see how this is a successful defense.

 

[Zigner]

I also feel that laches is one of the "kitchen sink" defenses. I've seen it cited after a couple of months

 

[Zigner]

Latches is an equitable defense.

I'm SURE it was a typo

 

[brokeandhappy12]

Latches is an equitable defense. How were you harmed by the other party slumbering on their rights?

The money was owed. I don't see how this is a successful defense.

As cited before 2 out of 3 children are over 18 and emancipated at the time of Filing of the 2011 Order to Show Cause Contempt. Therefore 2 out of 3 children would not benefit from the award. In this response the change in support laws (2007) would be the claim to demonstrate "a change in conditions that would render it inequitable to enforce the right asserted". Interesting to note in the Modification hearing of 2011 the court ruled that support was based on the combined income of both parents (utilizing the Florida CS Guideline) removing the additional 10% bonus payment of the Georgia Support Judgement Order going forward. The courts action might be used in the response?

 

[Zigner]

Therefore 2 out of 3 children would not benefit from the award.

On this, your reasoning is flawed. CS is to reimburse a parent for the money they pay towards the child's needs.

 

[CSO286]

As cited before 2 out of 3 children are over 18 and emancipated at the time of Filing of the 2011 Order to Show Cause Contempt. Therefore 2 out of 3 children would not benefit from the award. In this response the change in support laws (2007) would be the claim to demonstrate "a change in conditions that would render it inequitable to enforce the right asserted". Interesting to note in the Modification hearing of 2011 the court ruled that support was based on the combined income of both parents (utilizing the Florida CS Guideline) removing the additional 10% bonus payment of the Georgia Support Judgement Order going forward. The courts action might be used in the response?

They would have already benefitted from the funds. Child support is meant to reimburse the custodial parent for money spent providing for the children.
By that argument, one could say that no one should have to pay their arrears for that same reason. The argument is flawed.

If the paying parent failed to modify the order at the time of the guideline changes--or as the older children emancipated, then his inaction is an indication to the court that he was fine with the support amounts as set.

\Child support is rarely retroactively modified.

 

[CSO286]

On this, your reasoning is flawed. CS is to reimburse a parent for the money they pay towards the child's needs.

Or, ditto. (in lieu of my post.)

*sigh*

 

[BL]

Or, ditto. (in lieu of my post.)

*sigh*

That word .

Ha, good to go for an apeals that will cost .. Low blow ...

n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." Examples: a) knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; b) Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; c) Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of "affirmative defenses" in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the "statute of limitations," which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.).

 

[brokeandhappy12]

They would have already benefitted from the funds. Child support is meant to reimburse the custodial parent for money spent providing for the children.
By that argument, one could say that no one should have to pay their arrears for that same reason. The argument is flawed.

If the paying parent failed to modify the order at the time of the guideline changes--or as the older children emancipated, then his inaction is an indication to the court that he was fine with the support amounts as set.

\Child support is rarely retroactively modified.

In this case the Ex-Wife did not continuously seek to enforce the child support (Specifically the 10 % Bonus Payment) while the child is a minor but instead waits until after the "child" has reached adulthood and thus will not benefit from the arrearages collection. In such a case, reimbursement to the obligee parent will not cognizably advance the child's welfare setting up for a Defense of Laches. Why did the court in 2011 agree to remove the 10% Bonus payments on future payments? The issue here is the Ex-Wife after concluding the court would not agree to continue the order to impose a non-conforming CS Windfall Payment, decides to pursue collection in previous years. During 2007 GA ruled the CS Guidlines unconstitutional, Florida Domesticated this judgment in 2002. Therefore the Ex-Wife would never have been entitled to this Bonus Payment. Former Husband asserts this as the change in conditions that would render it inequitable to enforce the right asserted.

LACHES.—Laches shall bar any action unless it is commenced within the time provided for legal actions concerning the same subject matter regardless of lack of knowledge by the person sought to be held liable that the person alleging liability would assert his or her rights and whether the person sought to be held liable is injured or prejudiced by the delay.

 

[Zigner]

...waits until after the "child" has reached adulthood and thus will not benefit from the arrearages collection.

The child ALREADY benefited from the money.

 

[CSO286]

In this case the Ex-Wife did not continuously seek to enforce the child support (Specifically the 10 % Bonus Payment) while the child is a minor but instead waits until after the "child" has reached adulthood and thus will not benefit from the arrearages collection.

You argument is insupportable and still flawed. The child was already provided for by the CP who had to make up the shortfall in the support ordered. That is where the child's benefit occurred. The CP met the needs.

The payor owes the funds as ordered to the CP.

 

[brokeandhappy12]

You argument is insupportable and still flawed. The child was already provided for by the CP who had to make up the shortfall in the support ordered. That is where the child's benefit occurred. The CP met the needs.

The payor owes the funds as ordered to the CP.

The former Husband paid the monthly Specific Child Support Payments. In fact he paid for 2 out of 3 children beyond the age of 18 by at least 2 years. The issue is the additional funds that were ordered by the agreement that (remained unknown) and not paid and later deemed by the court to be non-conforming and removed.

 

[tranquility]

Once again, how were you hurt? Not hurt at all, but hurt BECAUSE of the non-enforcement?

I've seen some cases allow estoppel when one parent actively concealed a child and then went after other parent when kid reached majority, but I don't see that here.