# FILED
October 30, 19 97 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF

APPEALS OF

TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTION

AT KNOXVILLE
) BLEDSOE CH

ANCERY ) IN RE: ESTATE OF ) NO. 03A01-9707-CH -00252 ) JAMES C. MEADER, DECEASED ) HON. G. RICHARD JOHNSON ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) AFFIRMED



### O P I N I O N

INMAN , Senior

Judge I The dece dent, Jam

es C. Me ader, di ed testate in Bledsoe

County, Tennesse e on May 23, 1995. His will wa s duly propounded for probate and letters testamentary were issued to his widow, Virginia Meader. In 1966, the decedent and his first wife were divorced in Milwaukee County, W

isconsin. Custody of f

ive (5) c hildren w as awar ded to their

mother; the decedent was or

dered to pa

y $45.00 per

week chi ld support. He paid nothing. In Wisconsin the age of majority is 19, and the children attained m ajority in 1 970, 1971, 1972, 1974 an d 1977, res pectively. The decedent having defa

ulted in his n atural an d legal obli gation to supp ort his children, the State

of Wiscon sin and the C ounty of Milw aukee ste pped in and provided pa

rtial suppor

t for the c hildren unti l each at tained ma jority. T he State of Wisconsin filed a claim against the estate of the decedent to recover $47,728.86paid to the m other in the

form of a

id to dependent childre n; the mother, Joyce Bunnell, one of the appell ants, fil ed a clai m for $32, 590.04 for support arr

earages , and the C ounty of Milw aukee fil ed a modest claim for1 Bagwell v. McTig he, 85 Tenn. 616, 4 S. W. 46 (T enn. 1887) ; Kempe v.

Bader, 86 Tenn. 189, 6 S. W. 126 (T enn. 1887) ; Hubble v. Morristown Land & Imp. Co., 95 Tenn. 585, 32 S. W. 965 (T enn. 1895)

. 2 $320.00 to r

ecover c ertain f

ees. To each o f these c laims the executrix f iled exce ptions, ple ading the statute of limitations of ten (10) years [T.C.A. § 28-3-110(2)]. The trial court sustained th e excepti ons, holding that the cl aims wer e barred by the aff

irmative defense o f the stat

ute of limi tations of t

en years. II So far a s we know , all civ il actions i n this jurisd iction are subject to a statute of limitation s. T.C .A. § 28 -3-110 prov ides that ‘ actions or judgments and decre es of cour

ts of rec ord of this or any other state or g overnment ’ shall be
commence d within ten (10) yea rs after the cause of action h as accru ed. In the light

most favorable to the

appellant s, their actions ac crued in 197 7 when the legal duty of the father to provide support for his children ended. If the statute

of limita tions of ten

(10) year s is applica

ble, it is conceded t

hat the claims ar e barred , since t

hey were filed in 199 6. T.C.A . § 36-5-6 13(c) pro vides: (c) The Court shal l apply the statute of limitations fo r maintainin g an action on arrearages of supp ort paymen ts of either the local law of this State or of the State which issued the support order . . . whichever is longer. The Wisc onsin statute

of limita tions is not r

evealed i n the record, requiring the presumption that it is identical to the Tennessee statute, 1 which, as stated, provides tha

t actions on

judgments a

nd decree s of courts of recor d of this or any other State or government shall be commenced within ten (10) years after th e cause of

action ac crued. This Cour

t has ruled

in a number

of cases that the sta

tute of lim

itations3

does not apply in actions to enforc e judgments wherein the defau lting pare nt sought to avoid payment of only that portion of the judg ment which accrued more than t en years bef ore the acti on was brou ght, e.g., Sandid ge v. Brown, No. 03A01-9104- CV-00142 ( Tenn. A pp. 1991), and cases therein c ited. T he rationale of these c ases is tha

t the obliga

tion of suppor

t for minor

children i s a continuing one and that the right of the child to be supported cannot be defeated by the dere liction of t

he custodia

l parent in

enforcin g a decre e of support
. But the obli gation of support in Wis consin ter minates when the chi ld reaches 19, the ag e of major ity, subje ct to exce

ptions not her

e releva nt, or, in the languag e of the c ases, the obligation th en cease s to be a con tinuing one, and the delimi ting period of ten (10) years beg ins to run. The arr earages were not

reduced t

o ‘judgment .’ For t

his reason, accordingto the appe llants, th e statute o f limitat ions is not app licable, since no judgment w as entere d to trigger its comme ncement. In 1987 the T ennessee Legislat ure amen ded T.C .A. § 36 -5-101 to pr ovide that “any order for child support shall be a judgment to be enforced as any other judgment . . . .” This amendment guaranteed the enforcea bility of child support payments. See, generally, 42 U.S. C. § 666; Rutledge v. Barre tt, 802 S.W. 2d 604 (Tenn. 1991). It

also elimi nated any equitable defense o f laches, waiver or estoppel
. Rutledgedid not addr ess the issu e of the st atute of li mitations. We think tha

t, absent a clear legislativ e mandate , child sup port judgme nts are subject to the defense of the statute of limitations as is “any other judgment. ” We ar

e not in the l east reluctant to e xpress the view that , in the field of c ivil law, child suppor t payments and judgment s rendere d therefor should never

be barre d by a delim

iting statut

e. This parental

obligation is both natural a nd legal an d should rem ain enfor ceable against the e state of t he4

obligor. But given the current status of the applicable statutory and decisional law, [ ”Judgments (for chil d support) a re subjec t to the def

enses appli cable to judgmen ts general ly, Bloom v. Bloom 769 S.W.2d 49 1 (Tenn. App. 19 88)”], we hold that in the case at Bar the plaintiffs’ ‘causes of action’ arose more than ten years before their causes were filed. We are thus in agreement with the trial court, a nd the judgment is affirmed at th e costs of t he appella

nt.

_________________

________________ William H . Inman, Senior Jud ge CONCUR:

_________________

_______________ Houston M. Goddard, PresidingJudge

_________________

_______________ Hersche l P. Fra

nks, Judge