Opinion ID: 2637540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court's allowance of the laches defense for delayed prosecution of mother's quest is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence

Text: ¶ 8 Laches is an equitable defense against the tardy prosecution of stale claims not yet barred by limitations. [20] Before a claim will be considered barred by laches it must be shown that (a) there has been an unreasonable delay in the commencement of proceedings to enforce the claim and that (b) by reason of this delay the defendant has been materially prejudiced. The party invoking the doctrine's benefit as an affirmative defense has the burden of proof and persuasion. [21] There is no bright-line rule for ascertaining when a claim becomes barred by laches or what delay is excusable. [22] Application of the doctrine is discretionary and varies with the facts and circumstances of each case. [23] The defendant is required to show more than mere lapse of time. [24] Equity must follow the law. It may not allow legal limitations to be abridged unless there are equitable considerations of a compelling nature which demonstrate prejudice-dealing delay. [25] ¶ 9 In support of his laches defense, Father argues that Mother's ten-year delay in prosecuting her quest has caused a substantial amount of interest to accrue ($32,032.58) for a total child-support arrears of $82,080. He urges that he is put at a severe disadvantage and will be irreparably damaged if he were ordered to satisfy the full amount of the arrearage that is pressed. At the time of trial his gross annual income was $30,300. He argues that because of his age (he is in his 50's), he will never earn enough money to pay off the obligation and the large amount of interest that Mother has allowed to accrue during the years of her inaction and failure to enforce the unpaid child-support obligation. ¶ 10 Child-support proceedings are of equitable cognizance. [26] In suits of that class, a trial court's decree will be set aside only if it is found to be clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence or to some governing principle of equity jurisprudence. [27] ¶ 11 The record here is grossly deficient. Father's failure to pay the decreed child support in reliance on the alleged oral agreement with Mother and the resulting accumulation of arrearage (with interest) do not, in contemplation of law, constitute the prejudice that is necessary to support the defense of laches. Although as a result of Mother's delay he now owes a substantial amount of accrued interest, his proof does not demonstrate that the delayed institution of enforcement proceedings placed him in a far more detrimental or disadvantaged position. It indicates only that he would now owe more money. ¶ 12 Because there has been no record showing of a material prejudice-dealing delay injurious to Father's interest, we hold that Mother's quest for enforcement of unpaid child-support obligation is not barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.