Barry Lynn Arthur v. CW, DSS, DSCE, ex rel S.Smith ( 1999 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
BARRY LYNN ARTHUR
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1762-98-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,
ex rel. SUSAN J. SMITH
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY
James W. Updike, Jr., Judge
(J. Leyburn Mosby, Jr., on brief), for
appellant.
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Ashley L.
Taylor, Jr., Deputy Attorney General; Robert
B. Cousins, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney
General; Craig M. Burshem, Regional Special
Counsel; Jack A. Maxwell, Special Counsel, on
brief), for appellee.
Barry L. Arthur appeals the judgment of the trial court
holding him liable for past due child support owed to Susan
Smith. Arthur contends that the trial court erred because: (1)
he and Smith agreed to terminate his child support obligation;
(2) the claim for past due child support is barred by laches or
the statute of limitations; (3) the claim for past due child
support is barred under the doctrine of estoppel; and (4) any
interest awarded should accrue only from the date of the trial
court's judgment. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the
parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal,
we view [the] evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below. Where, as here, the
court hears the evidence ore tenus, its
finding is entitled to great weight and will
not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly
wrong or without evidence to support it.
Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social Servs., 3 Va. App.
15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986).
Background
The parties were divorced by decree entered January 1, 1980.
The decree ruled that there was one child born of the marriage.
On February 18, 1980, the Bedford County Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court ordered Arthur to pay child support.
Two months later, Smith's attorney wrote to the clerk of the
juvenile court that Smith "wishes to release [Arthur] of all past
and future child support payments" and that Arthur "has agreed to
give up all visitation rights to the child." Although that
attorney drafted an order to that effect, the order was never
entered.
In 1997, Smith filed a motion seeking to recover $21,970 in
past child support due under the unmodified support order.
Arthur contended that the parties had agreed to modify the order,
exchanging a waiver of his child support obligation for a waiver
of his visitation rights. The Division of Child Support
- 2 -
Enforcement (DCSE) intervened in the matter on behalf of Smith.
The trial court entered judgment against Arthur in the amount of
$22,835, plus interest at the judgment rate accruing as of July
1, 1995.
Agreement
Arthur contends that the trial court erred by failing to
enforce the parties' agreement under which Smith waived all child
support and Arthur waived his visitation rights. We find no
error. No order incorporating the purported agreement was ever
entered. The trial court did not err in refusing to give effect
to a proposed order that was never entered.
Assuming arguendo that an agreement had been reached, the
Supreme Court has held that "parents cannot contract away their
children's rights to support nor can a court be precluded by
agreement from exercising its power to decree child support."
Kelley v. Kelley, 248 Va. 295, 298, 449 S.E.2d 55, 56 (1994). A
child's right to support from his or her parents "cannot be
impinged by contract, and any contract purporting to do so is
facially illegal and void." Id. at 299, 449 S.E.2d at 57. The
agreement to waive Arthur's obligation to support the child in
exchange for a waiver of his visitation rights, even if executed,
was unenforceable.
Arthur cites Acree v. Acree, 2 Va. App. 151, 342 S.E.2d 68(1986), and Wilderman v. Wilderman, 25 Va. App. 500, 489 S.E.2d
701 (1997), as authority supporting his position that he is
- 3 -
entitled to relief. Those cases are clearly distinguishable and
not controlling. They involved narrow, fact-specific instances
where parents agreed to modify their support obligations in ways
that continued to benefit the children for whom the support was
paid. No such benefit arose in the circumstances of this case.
Here, the purported agreement would have denied the child support
from, and contact with, Arthur throughout the years.
Laches and Statute of Limitations
Arthur contends that Smith is barred by laches or,
alternatively, the statute of limitations from seeking to recover
the past due child support. "Laches is an equitable defense, but
'"even a court of equity, in an effort to do equity, cannot
disregard the provisions of a lawful decree . . . ."'"
Richardson v. Moore, 217 Va. 422, 423-24, 229 S.E.2d 864, 866
(1976) (quoting Fearon v. Fearon, 207 Va. 927, 931, 154 S.E.2d
165, 168 (1967)). The trial court could not disregard the
provisions of the 1980 support decree. Thus, it did not err in
denying Arthur's laches defense.
Similarly, Smith's claim for outstanding child support is
not barred by any statute of limitations. In Bennett v.
Commonwealth ex rel. Waters, 15 Va. App. 135, 422 S.E.2d 458(1992), we distinguished a "money judgment" from an ongoing
obligation to pay spousal support pursuant to a court order.
When such a . . . support order is initially
entered, it establishes the monetary amount
of an ongoing support obligation. It is in
that sense an order requiring the payment of
money . . . . It is not, and cannot be, a
- 4 -
judgment for a sum certain or liquidated
amount of money. Time and circumstances of
the parties will determine ultimately the
total amount to be paid under an initial, or
subsequently modified, . . . support order.
Moreover, because such a . . . support order
is ongoing and unliquidated, it is
essentially different from a money judgment,
which adjudicates a sum certain due and
owing.
Id. at 141-42, 422 S.E.2d at 462. Thus, an order to pay the
ongoing obligation of child support is not a money judgment,
until an unpaid amount has been determined and reduced to a
"money judgment." Therefore, Code § 8.01-251, cited by Arthur,
which sets a twenty-year statute of limitations on the
enforcement of "money judgments," does not bar Smith from
recovering the child support arrearage.
Estoppel
Arthur also contends that Smith is equitably and
collaterally estopped from seeking to recover the child support
arrearage. We disagree. "If without legal excuse one does not
comply with a lawful decree requiring him to pay support monies,
he does not meet the requirements of [the] . . . doctrine [of
estoppel] and may not use 'equity' as a defense." Martin v.
Bales, 7 Va. App. 141, 146-47, 371 S.E.2d 823, 826 (1988). There
is no merit in Arthur's contention that Smith was collaterally
estopped from pursuing the support arrearage because the juvenile
and domestic relations district court dismissed the criminal
motion to show cause. The fact that Arthur may not have
contemptuously disregarded the support order does not relieve him
- 5 -
of his civil obligation to support his child. Smith is not
collaterally estopped by an unsuccessful criminal contempt
prosecution from pursuing a civil action.
For at least 118 years, [the Supreme] Court,
in dealing with the preclusive effect of a
criminal judgment upon a subsequent civil
action arising from the same transaction, has
recognized that the criminal charge and the
civil action, "though founded on the same
fact, are distinct remedies, prosecuted by
different parties and for different
purposes," and that there is a "want of
mutuality."
Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Dean, 233 Va. 260, 263-64, 355 S.E.2d
579, 580-81 (1987) (citation omitted).
Interest
Code § 20-78.2 provides, in pertinent part, that an order of
support arrearage "shall also include an amount for interest on
the arrearage at the judgment interest rate as established by
[Code] § 6.1-330.54 unless the obligee, in a writing submitted to
the court, waives the collection of interest." (Emphasis added.)
Code § 63.1-267 provides that "[i]nterest at the judgment
interest rate as established by [Code] § 6.1-330.54 on any
arrearage pursuant to an order being enforced by the Department
[of Social Services] pursuant to this chapter shall be collected
by the Commissioner except in the case of a minor obligor during
the period of his minority." (Emphasis added.) These
provisions, as amended, were effective July 1, 1995. The trial
court did not err in awarding interest to Smith as provided by
statute.
- 6 -
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 7 -