Statute of limitations on a divorce agreement?

[ohiobear]

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


In 1981 I went through divorce procedures with my ex husband, I of course hired the county's prosecuting attorney, which he handled the divorce flawlessly. Because I have 3 children, he wrote up a divorce agreement, which my ex husband signed. The agreement had many things listed, such as:

My ex was responsible for having a life insurance policy for himself, he was responsible for their first year of their college education (their tuition, housing, books, etc) , he was supposed to provide health insurance for the children (dental, vision and medical) , he was also responsible for things such as hair cuts and other basic needs. Needless to say, there are many significant financial things he was supposed to pay for and obtain, but never did so. In addition, he was ordered to pay for child support, which he later had reduced due to a minimal amount.


As of now, my children are grown, my ex husband remarried the same year we became divorced (1981) and even though he has always earned high wages during his working years, his current wife was smart enough to put all of their homes, vehicles and possessions in her name. Right now, both my ex husband and his current wife are experiencing major health problem, she has terminal cancer and will last another year, if that and he, my ex husband is on the waiting list for a heart transplant. Needless to say, their lives are short, which has brought them to liquidation of property and assets.

They have already sold one home (last year) , which was a $300,000 cash deal, and as of today they are planning on selling their other home which is worth roughly the same amount. That doesn't include all of their other significant personal assets such as vehicles and such.


My question is, even though 33 years have passed, is there any way I can still enforce the divorce agreement that agreed to? I would like to see my 3 children get what they deserve, because I feel that my ex husband's wife will give or Will the remainder of the remaining money to her son.


Thank you and I appreciate any information I can receive.

 

[single317dad]

There are others on this site who will likely be more helpful than I am about to be, but I'll try to answer some of your questions anyway.

As far as child support (and all orders pertaining to support, such as "hair cuts", there was a statute of limitations on support collections in Ohio prior to 1998. That SoL may have run by now, depending on the length (most I've seen are 10 or 20 years).

The fact that he had his support reduced will mean that he won't owe any more support than that new order (plus arrears from the old one, if any). In fact, the new order may completely supersede the original order, and he may not be responsible for any of the additional expenses from that point forward. It depends on the exact wording.

To collect anything, you'll need to be able to show that you provided these things the children needed, and prove that per the agreement he needs to reimburse you. Can you do that?

 

[Ohiogal]

Look at this:
Langley v. Langley, 2014-Ohio-1651, 2013CA0015
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Coshocton
April 16, 2014


Walters v. Walters, 2013-Ohio-2554, 12 JE 17
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Jefferson
June 17, 2013


There is caselaw that stated laches is NOT a defense. (In the next post)

 

[Ohiogal]

Then this is the granddaddy:

Hayman v. Hayman, 919 N.E.2d 797, 184 Ohio App.3d 97, 2009-Ohio-4855 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2009)
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Fairfield County
September 10, 2009
919 N.E.2d 797
184 Ohio App.3d 97
2009-Ohio-4855


Which says:

Appellant, Harry Hayman, and appellee, Pamela Hayman, were married on February 19, 1953. Six children were born of the marriage, namely: John H.,
Melanie, Della, Frederick, Lisa, and Edward.

{¶ 3} A decree of divorce was filed on October 10, 1968. Pursuant to the terms of the decree, appellant was ordered to pay $80 a week plus poundage as child support. Appellant was ordered to pay this amount to the clerk of court as trustee for appellee. At the time, all the children were minors and resided with appellee.

{¶ 4} As memorialized in an entry filed on June 26, 1971, the trial court found that John, the oldest child, was emancipated. Appellant's child-support order, upon agreement of the parties, was reduced to $68 a week plus poundage. Appellant was ordered to pay that amount to the clerk of court as trustee for appellee. After Melanie moved in with him, appellant, on October 18, 1971, filed a motion requesting that his child-support obligation be reduced by $8 per week. The trial court, pursuant to a judgment entry filed on December 2, 1997, overruled that request.

{¶ 5} Subsequently, on September 30, 2004, the Fairfield County Child Support Enforcement Agency (" CSEA" ) filed a motion asking the trial court to determine what arrearage amount was owed by appellant and to order appellant to make payments on the amount. At the time, all of the children were emancipated. In response, appellant, on August 16, 2005, filed a motion asking that the motion be dismissed based on the doctrine of laches. Appellant argued that a 28-year delay by appellee in seeking child-support arrearages materially prejudiced him.

The arrearages:

{¶ 6} A hearing before a magistrate was held on June 1, 2006. Prior to any testimony, the parties stipulated to CSEA Exhibit 1, which was a calculation of the arrearages owed by appellant. The records showed that appellant paid $4,159.41 in child support in 1969, $4,240 in child support in 1970, $3,688 in child support in 1971, $3,604 in child support in 1972, $3,536 in child support in 1973, $3,128 in child support in 1974, $408 in child support in 1975, and $1,020 in child support in 1976. Appellant did not make any payments after 1976. The records showed that appellant owed arrearages of $19,229.03.

On waiting 28 years for contempt:

{¶ 45} Appellant, in his second assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply the doctrine of laches to relieve him from his obligation to pay child support arrearages. We disagree.

{¶ 46} The decision of a trial court concerning the application of the doctrine of laches will not be reversed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Payne v. Cartee (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 580, 590, 676 N.E.2d 946. An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment but rather implies that the [919 N.E.2d 803] court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. See Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶ 47} Laches is an equitable doctrine. It has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as " ‘ an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party.’ " Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 34, 35, 15 OBR 134, 472 N.E.2d 328, quoting Smith v. Smith (1957), 107 Ohio App. 440, 443-444, 8 O.O.2d 424, 146 N.E.2d 454. Delay in asserting a right does not of itself constitute laches, and in order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting the claim. Connin, 15 Ohio St.3d at 35-36, 15 OBR 134, 472 N.E.2d 328. See also Smith v. Smith (1959), 168 Ohio St. 447, 7 O.O.2d 276, 156 N.E.2d 113, paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶ 48} We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant was not materially prejudiced by the 28-year delay between the time when appellee received her last child-support payment in 1976 until appellee filed her motion in 2004. Appellant contends that he was materially prejudiced because he has financially assisted all of his children over the last 28 years and has provided for them in his estate planning and that if the arrearage issue had been raised earlier, the money that he has already given to his children or has set aside for his children would have been applied to the arrearage instead.

And:

{¶ 50} Appellant also contends that he was materially prejudiced because he no longer has his bank records to check against CSEA's records. At the hearing, appellant did not allege that he made any child-support payments directly to appellee. All payments made by appellant should, therefore, appear on CSEA's records. Thus, as noted by the trial court, the fact that appellant could not obtain his banking records did not prejudice him. We further note that appellant's counsel stipulated that the CSEA records were " as accurate as can be after 36 years."

{¶ 51} In short, we find that the trial court's decision was not arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable because appellant failed to show that he was materially prejudiced by appellee's delay.[1]

Is that a guarantee you will win? Nope. But there is not a SOL on collecting. This case shows she prevailed after waiting 28 years.

 

[Ohiogal]

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


In 1981 I went through divorce procedures with my ex husband, I of course hired the county's prosecuting attorney, which he handled the divorce flawlessly. Because I have 3 children, he wrote up a divorce agreement, which my ex husband signed. The agreement had many things listed, such as:

My ex was responsible for having a life insurance policy for himself, he was responsible for their first year of their college education (their tuition, housing, books, etc) , he was supposed to provide health insurance for the children (dental, vision and medical) , he was also responsible for things such as hair cuts and other basic needs. Needless to say, there are many significant financial things he was supposed to pay for and obtain, but never did so. In addition, he was ordered to pay for child support, which he later had reduced due to a minimal amount.


As of now, my children are grown, my ex husband remarried the same year we became divorced (1981) and even though he has always earned high wages during his working years, his current wife was smart enough to put all of their homes, vehicles and possessions in her name. Right now, both my ex husband and his current wife are experiencing major health problem, she has terminal cancer and will last another year, if that and he, my ex husband is on the waiting list for a heart transplant. Needless to say, their lives are short, which has brought them to liquidation of property and assets.

They have already sold one home (last year) , which was a $300,000 cash deal, and as of today they are planning on selling their other home which is worth roughly the same amount. That doesn't include all of their other significant personal assets such as vehicles and such.


My question is, even though 33 years have passed, is there any way I can still enforce the divorce agreement that agreed to? I would like to see my 3 children get what they deserve, because I feel that my ex husband's wife will give or Will the remainder of the remaining money to her son.


Thank you and I appreciate any information I can receive.

You can collect on the child support he owes but NOT life insurance -- that would have fallen off at the time the last child emancipated. Health insurance at that time won't be able to be collected nor will most likely college items due to the fact that he may be sufficiently prejudiced by your delay. Child support is a different story however.

 

[Bali Hai]

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


In 1981 I went through divorce procedures with my ex husband, I of course hired the county's prosecuting attorney, which he handled the divorce flawlessly. Because I have 3 children, he wrote up a divorce agreement, which my ex husband signed. The agreement had many things listed, such as:

My ex was responsible for having a life insurance policy for himself, he was responsible for their first year of their college education (their tuition, housing, books, etc) , he was supposed to provide health insurance for the children (dental, vision and medical) , he was also responsible for things such as hair cuts and other basic needs. Needless to say, there are many significant financial things he was supposed to pay for and obtain, but never did so. In addition, he was ordered to pay for child support, which he later had reduced due to a minimal amount.


As of now, my children are grown, my ex husband remarried the same year we became divorced (1981) and even though he has always earned high wages during his working years, his current wife was smart enough to put all of their homes, vehicles and possessions in her name. Right now, both my ex husband and his current wife are experiencing major health problem, she has terminal cancer and will last another year, if that and he, my ex husband is on the waiting list for a heart transplant. Needless to say, their lives are short, which has brought them to liquidation of property and assets.

They have already sold one home (last year) , which was a $300,000 cash deal, and as of today they are planning on selling their other home which is worth roughly the same amount. That doesn't include all of their other significant personal assets such as vehicles and such.


My question is, even though 33 years have passed, is there any way I can still enforce the divorce agreement that agreed to? I would like to see my 3 children get what they deserve, because I feel that my ex husband's wife will give or Will the remainder of the remaining money to her son.


Thank you and I appreciate any information I can receive.

An observation:

Despite your neglect to properly enforce the court orders all of these years, you appear have more knowledge than what one would expect about the personal life of your ex and his wife of 33 years.

The following may not exactly apply to your situation but I think is an analogy:

I once knew someone who mistakenly built a house partly on someone else's property and put in a lawn, well, driveway etc. The person who owned the property that the house was partly built on knew full well of this error and did nothing about it for over thirty years. When the house owner put the property up for sale, there was a dispute about what could be legally sold. The person who disputed the sale was expecting to cash in on some of it.

The court ruled that the house owner now possessed the entire property that was improved through a little known law called adverse possession. The person waiting in the bushes to cash in on the house sale and knew of the owners mistake for all those years got nothing.

 

[Zigner]

The following may not exactly apply to your situation but I think is an analogy:

There is no analogy between the two areas of law.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Please don't pay attention to Bali Hai. He's still bitter about having to pay alimony to the philandering ex.

I am unsure what adverse possession has to do, even metaphorically, with child support. I could better understand the allegory had the arrears been accruing while Dad was the one effectively raising the children, and now you wanted the cs arrears for children you hadn't actually raised...

I know nothing about OH law, but it would be more prudent to pay more attention to the advice you received from someone who actually practices law in Ohio (Ohiogal).

 

[Bali Hai]

Please don't pay attention to Bali Hai. He's still bitter about having to pay alimony to the philandering ex.

I am unsure what adverse possession has to do, even metaphorically, with child support. I could better understand the allegory had the arrears been accruing while Dad was the one effectively raising the children, and now you wanted the cs arrears for children you hadn't actually raised...

I know nothing about OH law, but it would be more prudent to pay more attention to the advice you received from someone who actually practices law in Ohio (Ohiogal).

Yes, listen to Ohiogal by all means.

It doesn't mean what I said about OP doing nothing (waiting in the bushes) (acquiescing) for 33 years, with her nose poked where it doesn't belong, might have an adverse effect on trying to collect.

Please look for an argument elsewhere.

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes, listen to Ohiogal by all means.

It doesn't mean what I said about OP doing nothing (waiting in the bushes) (acquiescing) for 33 years, with her nose poked where it doesn't belong, might have an adverse effect on trying to collect.

Please look for an argument elsewhere.

Did you read the caselaw I posted or even what I stated? No really? Bali, you are wrong on this one.

 

[Silverplum]

Married since '81, and still OP terms Mrs. 2 as the "current wife."

 

[Bali Hai]

Did you read the caselaw I posted or even what I stated? No really? Bali, you are wrong on this one.

Well i can't be right all of the time you know?

It would be interesting to know if the party in the caselaw you posted ever collected that $19,229.03.

 

[Bali Hai]

Married since '81, and still OP terms Mrs. 2 as the "current wife."

Yeah really Silverplum. One would think with as much knowedge as OP has about her ex-husband of 33 years, she would be the current wife.

 

[Bali Hai]

Also

Needless to say, there are many significant financial things he was supposed to pay for and obtain, but never did so.

What does this mean? If it was needless to say, why did she say it?