Court Opinion

ID: 9857041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:13:11.929197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:55.069256
License: Public Domain

Pbice, J.
(dissenting): I find myself in the somewhat awkward position of being unable to agree with the opinion of the court which *845fell to my lot to write. But, I would be less than honest with myself if I did not register a brief dissent, for I am convinced that upon this record the decision of the trial court was correct.
I do not, for one moment, contend that defendant should not be censured and condemned for his delinquency in failing to provide support for his child during the twelve-year period. On the other hand, whose duty was it to see that the order was enforced? As a practical matter it was not the child’s — it was plaintiff’s duty, and from this record it is clear that she not only did not request any money but did not want any. By her inaction and acquiescence over the years, she, for all practical effects, due to the intervention of the statute of limitations, waived all rights she or her son possessed to collect delinquent payments accruing more than five years prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Why, then, was it not possible, as a matter of fact; and of law, for her to waive those rights, by her laches, as to the payments accruing within five years prior to its commencement? As was said in Calkin v. Hudson, 156 Kan. 308, 133 P. 2d 177, cited in the opinion of the court—
“Where the statute of limitations is not an absolute bar to the enforcement of stale demands, the doctrine of laches as a principle of equity may frequently be invoked with equal effect. Laches exist when there is undue delay in the assertion of a legal right before a tribunal competent to enforce it. Lapse of time alone does not constitute laches . . .; but if such delay has misled other parties to their prejudice the bar of laches may be invoked. . . .” (p. 318.)
My thought on this matter is that the court’s decision fails to take into account those human elements and practical everyday realities of life so often present when parents are divorced. For all this record shows the child was properly and adequately supported during the period he lived with his mother and stepfather, Peters. There is no contention to the contrary. And, as far as the present and future are concerned, the trial court has already made an order for support, and can increase the amount to be paid as circumstances warrant.
The written memorandum of the trial court expresses my views in this matter, and for that reason I would affirm the judgment.