FITZGERALD v FITZGERALD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-46 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 CYNTHIA A. FITZGERALD, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsTIMOTHY P. FITZGERALD, 111, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal From: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Leaphart Law Firm, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Page Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided : June 25, 1980 RUG 6 - 1380 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f from a n o r d e r of t h e . s t r i c t C o u r t denying h e r p e t i t i o n t o f i n d r e s p o n d e n t g u i l t y of contempt and f o r payment of $4,400 i n s u p p o r t payments t h a t a r e i n a r r e a r s . T h i s matter began i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Lewis and C l a r k County, F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , when t h e Honorable V i c t o r H. F a l l e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e awarding c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d t o t h e mother on A p r i l 30, 1971. The c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n a s t o c h i l d s u p p o r t : " 3 . T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l n o t have t h e r i g h t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d , u n l e s s and u n t i l , h e p a y s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k of t h i s u c o u r t , t h e s m of f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month a s and f o r s u p p o r t o f t h e minor c h i l d of t h e parties. I f and when d e f e n d a n t b e g i n s t o make s a i d s u p p o r t payment t o p l a i n t i f f , t h e c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , modify t h i s d e c r e e t o permit defendant t h e r i g h t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d a t a l l r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s and p l a c e s . " I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t found i n F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 7: "Defendant e a r n s s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e minor c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o . " C o n c l u s i o n of Law No. 3 stated: "The d e f e n d a n t s h a l l have no r i g h t t o v i s i t s a i d c h i l d , u n l e s s and u n t i l , he p a y s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h e sum of f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k of t h i s c o u r t f o r t h e s u p p o r t and maintenance of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s hereto. " Respondent d i d n o t make any s u p p o r t payments between A p r i l 1971 and September 1979. The r e c o r d s of t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t i n d i c a t e t h a t he i s i n a r r e a r s i n t h e amount of Respondent d i d n o t see t h e minor c h i l d between A p r i l 1 9 7 1 and t h e summer of 1979, e x c e p t f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d when t h e c h i l d was a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s p a r e n t s f home i n 1978. After t h a t meeting w i t h h i s s o n , a v i s i t a t i o n w a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1979 a t t h e r e q u e s t of a p p e l l a n t , r e s p o n d e n t ' s ex-wife. When v i s i t a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1979, r e s p o n d e n t commenced p a y i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . He c o n t e n d s t h a t he w i l l c o n t i n u e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t and wants t o see h i s minor son on a permanent b a s i s . Following t h e v i s i t a t i o n i n 1979 a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of a r r e a r a g e which i s t h e b a s i s of t h e c u r r e n t a c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t had n o t p r e v i o u s l y made any a t t e m p t t o modify t h e o r i g i n a l judgment o r m a i n t a i n any a c t i o n t o c o l l e c t t h e a r r e a r a g e under t h e Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement of S u p p o r t A c t f o r some e i g h t years. Respondent c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l judgment d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t w i t h o u t h i s b e i n g a b l e t o s e e and v i s i t h i s minor c h i l d . S i n c e s u c h v i s i t a t i o n was n o t e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e e i g h t - y e a r p e r i o d , nor r e q u e s t e d by a p p e l l a n t , h e a r g u e s t h a t i t would b e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and c o n t r a r y t o t h e judgment t o r e q u i r e him t o pay t h e a r r e a r a g e set f o r t h i n the affidavit. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b s t a n - t i a l l y a g r e e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t i n denying a p p e l l a n t r e l i e f . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: 1. Does t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e r e q u i r e t h a t r e s p o n d e n t pay c h i l d support? 2. Does t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s a p p l y a s a d e f e n s e t o t h e s u i t t o enforce a c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n i n t h i s case? I n denying h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e a r r e a r a g e , r e s p o n d e n t c o n t e n d s he had no o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d under t h e d e c r e e u n l e s s and u n t i l h e e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h t of visitation. T h i s argument must be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h e f i n d i n g of Judge F a l l t h a t r e s p o n d e n t w a s c a p a b l e a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e of p a y i n g $50 p e r month i n s u p p o r t . The p r o v i s i o n on v i s i t a t i o n h a s no b e a r i n g whatsoever upon r e s p o n d e n t ' s l e g a l and moral o b l i g a t i o n s t o s u p p o r t h i s child. The d e c r e e d i d n o t and c o u l d n o t c o n d i t i o n t h e s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n on t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t of v i s i t a tion. See P a t e r s o n v. P a t e r s o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 73 Wis.2d 150, 242 N.W.2d 907; R e f e r v. R e f e r ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 102 Mont. 121, 56 P.2d 750; S t a t e e x r e l . Lay v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 2 Mont. I n e a r l i e r c a s e s t h i s C o u r t h a s spoken o u t on t h e moral o b l i g a t i o n of p a r e n t s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y f a t h e r s , t o s u p p o r t t h e i r children. R e f e r v. v. D i s t r i c t Court, supra. R e f e r , s u p r a ; S t a t e e x r e l . Lay I n Lay, t h i s C o u r t , c i t i n g e a r - l i e r opinions, noted: ". . . I t i s t h e l e g a l as w e l l a s t h e moral d u t y of a p a r e n t t o s u p p o r t h i s minor c h i l d r e n and t h e f a t h e r i s n o t a b s o l v e d from t h e d u t y by a d i v o r c e from t h e i r mother. [Citations o m i t t e d . ] Thus d e f e n d a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e r e q u i r e d money f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s i n f a n t d a u g h t e r i s n o t simply a n o u t g r o w t h of t h e d i v o r c e s u i t n o r i s i t a mere i n c i d e n t t h e r e t o , b u t i t i s a s o c i a l and a p a r e n t a l o b l i g a t i o n imposed by l a w . 122 Mont. a t 71-72, 198 P.2d a t 767. . ." T h i s view was r e c e n t l y c i t e d and s u p p o r t e d i n Woolverton v . Woolverton ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 490, 549 P.2d 458. Respondent f a i l s t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e law imposes upon c i v i l i z e d men--the duty t o p r o v i d e food and s h e l t e r a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r h i s own. It is o n e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s upon which Adam was bounced o u t o f t h e C o u r t s have a n g a r d e n , and i t h a s been t h e law e v e r s i n c e . inherent jurisdiction t o protect infants. They are wards o f t h e government, and t h e c o u r t s a r e t o p r o t e c t t h e i r b r e a d and b u t t e r . When d o i n g s o , t h e y do n o t t a k e t h e i r c l u e from E l i j a h and t h e r a v e n s , b u t draw i t from t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e father. W e find the court incorrectly applied the r u l e i n t h i s case, and i t s judgment must be r e v e r s e d . Concerning t h e second i s s u e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of J a n u a r y 24, 1980, f i n d s , i n e f f e c t , t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s f o r e c l o s e d from r e c o v e r i n g t h e back c h i l d s u p p o r t by t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s o r estoppel. S e v e r a l matters a r e of i m p o r t h e r e . F i r s t of a l l , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r assumes m a t t e r s n o t i n e v i d e n c e , i.e., t h a t a p p e l l a n t made no r e q u e s t f o r back s u p p o r t u n t i l r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t v i s i t a t i o n and commenced p a y i n g s u p p o r t . The r e c o r d i s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Respondent commenced h i s s u p p o r t payments i n September 1979, o n l y a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a demand l e t t e r from a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l . Second, r e g a r d l e s s o f when o r why r e s p o n d e n t commenced making h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, he i s n o t r e l i e v e d of h i s p a s t c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n by t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s o r e s t o p p e l . While t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s q u e s t i o n p r e v i o u s l y , s e v e r a l of o u r s i s t e r s t a t e s have. W e adopt t h e i r w e l l - r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n s f o r o u r h o l d i n g on t h i s i s s u e . The Supreme C o u r t of Kansas, i n S t r e c k e r v . Wilkinson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 220 Kan. 292, 552 P.2d 979, n o t e d t h a t s u p p o r t of c h i l d r e n , l i k e t h e i r c u s t o d y , i s a m a t t e r of s o c i a l c o n c e r n . I t i s an o b l i g a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r owes t h e s t a t e a s w e l l as t o h i s children. The c o u r t n o t e d : ". . . The p a r e n t a l d u t y t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e s u p p o r t and maintenance of a c h i l d c o n t i n u e s t h r o u g h t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y , and t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t may be e n f o r c e d by a n a c t i o n a t any t i m e d u r i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y . " 552 P.2d a t 984. The c o u r t t h e n went on t o h o l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t " i n v o k e t h e d e f e n s e of l a c h e s a s a b a r t o e n f o r c e h i s moral and l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t h i s c h i l d . " I n a c a s e on a l m o s t a l l f o u r s t o t h i s c a s e , t h e Wiscons i n c o u r t i n P a t e r s o n v. P a t e r s o n , s u p r a , a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f t o the issue support. of l a c h e s a s a d e f e n s e t o a c l a i m f o r back I n P a t e r s o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t had f a i l e d t o make h i s $50 a month payment f o r a p e r i o d of n i n e y e a r s and t h e mother d i d n o t t a k e any l e g a l a c t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of t h i r t e e n y e a r s , a t which t i m e s h e o b t a i n e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e why t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o pay a r r e a r a g e . The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d e d l a c h e s and f u r t h e r t h a t he had been m i s l e d t o h i s d e t r i m e n t by t h e mother's inaction. The Wisconsin c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e doc- t r i n e of l a c h e s does n o t apply t o t h e enforcement of c h i l d support orders: "However, w e would f u r t h e r h o l d t h a t t h e defense of laches i s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n an a c t i o n o r proceeding brought t o secure enforcement of a c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n . " P a t e r s o n , 242 N.W.2d a t 910. The Wisconsin c o u r t n o t e d t h a t even though one might r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t t h e c u s t o d i a n t o promptly s e e k t h e e n f o r c e ment of a s u p p o r t o r d e r , f a i l u r e of t h e c u s t o d i a n t o do s o d o e s n o t i n u r e t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p e r s o n c h o o s i n g n o t t o make t h e payments and s t a t e d : ". . . I t may b e r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t when c h i l d s u p p o r t payments a r e n o t made, t h e cust o d i a n , e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e s u c h payments, w i l l s e e k compliance w i t h t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r However, i f t h e c o u r t o r c u s t o d i a n do n o t promptly proceed s o t o do, t h e p e r s o n c h o o s i n g n o t t o make t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments i s n o t 242 N.W.2d t o p r o f i t o r b e n e f i t thereby. a t 910. . . . . ." The P a t e r s o n c o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t t h e r i g h t s and t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n are a t s t a k e and c a n n o t be s a c r i f i c e d by t h e i r c u s t o d i a n ' s i n a c t i o n . The c o u r t s a i d : "The r e a s o n i s t h a t , j u s t a s a d i v o r c e i n t h i s s t a t e does n o t i n v o l v e o n l y t h e d i v o r c i n g s p o u s e s , j u s t s o a n o r d e r f o r t h e c h i l d sup- p o r t does n o t involve only t h e p a r e n t required t o make such payments and t h e c u s t o d i a n e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e them. Under t h e s t a t u t e s u c h payments a r e made f o r t h e ' s u p p o r t , maintenance and e d u c a t i o n of t h e minor c h i l d r e n ' of t h e p a r ties. I n t h i s s t a t e such c h i l d r e n a r e ' i n t e r e s t e d and a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s ' i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n involving t h e i r parents. The r i g h t s of such c h i l d r e n are t o be s e r v e d and p r o t e c t e d Once a c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t e r m i n a t e s , t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s b e g i n s t o r u n , b u t , t h e n and e a r l i e r , t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s d o e s n o t apply." 242 N.W. 2d a t 910. ... reasons, we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t For t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d e r r e d i n holding t h a t laches applied here. Finally, appellant i n her brief before t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , r e q u e s t e d t h a t i n t e r e s t be awarded w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e back c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . This Court i n t h e r e c e n t c a s e of W i l l i a m s v . Budke ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 515, 37 St.Rep. - Mont. , 606 P.2d 228, h e l d : "We h o l d t h e r e f o r e t h a t when t h e m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e i s s i l e n t a s t o i n t e r e s t , such i n t e r e s t i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o l l e c t i b l e by t h e judgment c r e d i t o r s p o u s e on p a s t - d u e payments f o r s u p p o r t money o r maintenance, t h e same a s any o t h e r money judgment under s e c t i o n 25-9205, MCA." 606 P.2d a t 519, 3 7 St.Rep. a t 234. On t h e b a s i s of W i l l i a m s a p p e l l a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e i n t e r e s t on c h i l d s u p p o r t payments which were due and owing s i n c e A p r i l 1971. The d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r e n t r y of judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . R Justice W e concur: /i-[-Ylr / w

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.