Opinion ID: 1997947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Debt for Past AFDC Payments

Text: Jack argues that the Department's delay in pursuing its claim against him for Melissa's past support should prevent the Department from now asserting the obligation for that past support. First, Jack contends that the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents the Department from establishing this debt. The party asserting equitable estoppel bears the burden of establishing by clear and satisfactory proof that there was either actual fraud, or fault or negligence equivalent to fraud on the part of the person to be estopped ... or that he was silent when the circumstances would impel an honest man to speak, or that there was misleading active conduct of encouragement or intervention. Milliken v. Buswell, 313 A.2d 111, 119 (Me.1973). Moreover, that party must show that the conduct or silence caused him to change his position to his detriment. Id. Jack has not satisfied his burden. The Department fully complied with the terms of section 273, which allows commencement of an action at any time prior to the child's 18th birthday, while at the same time limiting the father's liability for past support to a period of 6 years next preceding commencement of the action. 19 M.R.S.A. § 273. Because the statute allows the Department to recover only those support payments made within the 6 years immediately preceding commencement of the action, Jack was in effect excused from any liability he might otherwise have had for support payments made during the earlier years of Melissa's life. Jack did not establish intentional or negligent delay on the part of the Department, nor did he establish that he was harmed by the delay. He has therefore failed to establish the elements of equitable estoppel. Second, Jack contends that the doctrine of laches bars the Department's claim against him for the past AFDC payments. Even assuming without deciding that the defense of laches is available against the sovereign, laches is a doctrine that applies only to equitable actions. See Strickland v. Cousens Realty, Inc., 484 A.2d 1006, 1008 (Me.1984). The administrative proceeding here under review is a statutory action to establish a money debt, comparable to a court action to recover money damages, and thus the doctrine of laches has no application to it. Furthermore, as with equitable estoppel, the doctrine of laches would bar the Department's claim only if Jack had demonstrated, inter alia, that the Department's delay in asserting its rights caused prejudice to Jack. See Leathers v. Stewart, 108 Me. 96, 101, 79 A. 16, 18 (1911). That he has not done. Finally, we reject Jack's contention that it is fundamentally unfair and violative of due process for the Department now to assert a debt that has been accruing for up to 6 years prior to commencement of the action. Jack, as the acknowledged father of Melissa, has had a duty at all times to support his child. 19 M.R.S.A. § 271 (1981); id. § 442 (Supp.1988). The fact that the Department did not determine Jack's obligation for that support until recently does not render that determination fundamentally unfair. The Department by statute is limited to recovery of past support accrued within 6 years of commencement of the action, and the Department's assertion of this accrued liability no more violates due process than does the 6-year statute of limitations on recovery of any money debt, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980).