In Re Marriage of Saraya involves a father paying child support to the mother for thirteen years after his daughter turned 18. Despite the fact that child support should have terminated, the father’s wages had been garnished, and his employer continued sending child support payments to the mother. Thirteen years later, the father requested that the mother reimburse him for the overpaid amount, but she refused. In response, the father filed a motion seeking reimbursement of child support and requested that the court order the mother to pay his attorney fees. 

In the court proceedings, the mother countered by requesting that the father pay her attorney fees and argued that the father’s claim for reimbursement was barred by laches. Laches is a legal defense that applies when a party delays asserting a right, resulting in harm to the other party. The court ruled that laches did not apply in this case, citing that the mother had “unclean hands.” Although the mother knew the child support payments should have stopped when the daughter turned 18, she continued to accept the payments. The court also acknowledged that the father should have taken action to stop the payments as well. He had previously filed to stop spousal support, yet failed to do the same for child support. Ultimately, the court granted the father’s request for attorney fees, denied the mother’s request for attorney fees, and rejected the father’s reimbursement claim. The ruling was then appealed.

On appeal, the father argued that the court had incorrectly applied laches as a defense and that Family Code section 4007 entitles the paying party to reimbursement for overpaid support. However, the Appellate Court disagreed, stating that Family Code section 4007 did not apply because the original judgment did not require the mother to notify the father when the daughter turned 18. The court also upheld the lower court’s finding that laches was not applicable, emphasizing the mother’s unclean hands. However, the Appellate Court placed the responsibility on the father for not terminating the wage assignment order. According to Family Code section 5240, a wage assignment must be terminated upon the obligor’s filing of a motion and notice. The court noted that the father’s extreme delay in seeking reimbursement was his own fault, and because there are no statutes or case law the define when reimbursement should be made, the delay was significant. The Appellate Court also affirmed the lower court’s award of attorney fees to the father and confirmed that the mother, due to her unclean hands, was not entitled to attorney fees. 

Key Takeaways

Key Point 

The court ruled that Family Code section 4007, which generally allows for reimbursement of overpaid child support, did not apply in this case because the judgment did not require the mother to notify the father when support obligations ended.

Key Point 

Both parents have responsibilities in ensuring that child support obligations are properly managed. In this case, the father failed to act in a timely manner to stop child support payments after his daughter turned 18, even though the support was no longer required.

Key Point 

The concept of laches, which prevents someone from asserting a claim after an unreasonable delay, was considered in this case. However, it was not applied because the mother knew child support should have ended but continued to accept payments. This showed she had “unclean hands,” meaning she couldn’t benefit from the defense.

If you are dealing with a similar family law issue or need assistance with a stopping a support order in Orange County, consider reaching out to Trevino Law. Our office in Laguna Hills, easily accessible from the 405 and 5 freeways, is here to help with your legal needs.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For specific legal advice, please contact Trevino Law, Inc.