Court Opinion

ID: 9752731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:31:08.682918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:21.440520
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
Although the majority concedes, as it must, the applicability of the laches defense in suits to enforce child support arrearages, see Brandt v. Brandt, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 276 F.2d 488 (1960), it is clearly unhappy with the law on that subject in the District of Columbia, see ante note 2, at 48.1 By applying the doctrine in what seems to me an unjustifiably narrow and grudging manner, it arrives at the conclusion that the defense fails under the facts of this case. I *50believe that appellee’s suit, involving an unexplained nineteen year period in which she slept on her rights, presents a clear case for the application of the doctrine. Accordingly, I would reverse.
“The elements of laches ... are (1) undue delay, (2) unexplained delay, and (3) injustice to the other party.” Schmittinger v. Schmittinger, D.C.App., 404 A.2d 967 (1979) (citing Amidon v. Amidon, D.C.App., 280 A.2d 82 (1971)). Each of these elements is met in the case at bar.
That appellee’s delay in bringing suit was undue can hardly be disputed. Although the arrearages were persistent, by the time of suit appellee had failed to enforce her rights for approximately nineteen years. Seven years had elapsed since appellant’s last voluntary support payment in 1972. In 1975 the child reached the age of majority, at which time the obligation to make further periodic support payments ceased. Thus, at any point thereafter, appellee could have sought the recovery of a single lump sum covering the entire amount that would ever be due. However, she failed to take any action until her husband had died without bequesting any of his estate to their daughter. At all times, both appellee and her former husband resided in the District of Columbia, and she was well aware of his whereabouts. That she knew how to enforce her rights is evident from the collection proceedings she instituted in 1960. Certainly under all these circumstances the delay was undue. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the record is devoid of any explanation, adequate or otherwise, for this delay. Thus, the second criterion is met.
It is the third element — injustice resulting from the delay — that the majority finds lacking. I would agree that prejudice is not to be inferred from the passage of time alone. See 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce & Separation § 719 (1966), and cases cited at Annot., 5 A.L.R. 4th 1015, § 6(b) (1981). However, I would hold that the inordinate delay, when coupled with the intervening death of the obligor and the fact that the daughter had long since reached majority, establishes the injustice of allowing appellee to press her claim at this late date.
It has long been clear beyond dispute that the loss of evidence due to delay supports a finding of prejudice. E.g., Levis v. Kengla, 8 App.D.C. 230, 238-40 (1896). See Powell v. Zuckert, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 59, 366 F.2d 634, 638 (1966) (citing Levis). It is sometimes possible for a party to prove that such evidence once existed. See, e.g., Beiter v. Beiter, 24 Ohio App.2d 149, 53 Ohio Op.2d 361, 265 N.E.2d 324 (1970). However, where the sole potential defense witness as to certain issues has died, such proof is impossible except in the fortuitous event that some other person was aware of the deceased’s knowledge of relevant facts or possession of material documents. If appel-lee had brought suit during her former husband’s life, he would have had the opportunity to prove any facts supporting his case, such as detrimental reliance on appellee’s delay or her expressed acquiescence in his failure to continue support payments.
The majority rather quickly dismisses this problem on the ground that the possibility of lost evidence is merely speculative. By so doing, the husband is placed in a Catch-22 situation: latches is theoretically available on the basis of lost testimony, but his successor has no means of showing that it applies. The same circumstance leading to the possible loss of relevant testimony — the death of the husband — also prevents proof as to whether evidence actually was lost. Since it is appellee’s undue and unexplained delay that led to this result, she, rather than the decedent, should bear the consequences. Moreover, under the majority’s rule, the door is opened to fraud by the bringing of stale claims. If a debtor had a defense that only he and his former spouse were aware of, the spouse could unjustly defeat it by delaying suit until after the debtor’s death. This is exactly the sort of danger that the laches doctrine is designed to, and should, eliminate. The policy at stake here is the same as is served by the Dead Man’s Statute, D.C.Code 1981, § 14-302, which prevents a plaintiff from prevailing against an estate on the basis of uncorroborated testimony regarding a *51transaction with the deceased. The statute recognizes that a swearing match between a live and a dead witness is inherently one-sided and unfair. Although the statute is not applicable in the present suit, the policy underlying the statute should also be given effect in the laches doctrine, where the plaintiff has delayed until after the defendant’s death.
It is also well established that a change in position on the part of the obligor can support a finding of injustice.2 E.g., Amidon v. Amidon, supra. In my view, a significant change in position was effected by the husband’s death, at which time his estate passed to appellant. The former wife was apparently content to sleep on her rights during her spouse’s lifetime, well past the time when her daughter reached her majority and her upbringing was no longer at stake. It was only after her former husband’s will — which left the entire estate to his present wife, disinheriting the daughter — was administered that she came forward to resurrect her long-dormant claim. Under all the circumstances, it would be unjust to allow appellee to recover a stale debt from the wife of her deceased husband.
Finally, the trial court provided an alternative ground for its ruling: that appellant should be denied the benefit of the laches defense because of her deceased husband’s alleged “unclean hands.” Not surprisingly, the majority avoids addressing this ground. The sole basis for it is that the decedent voluntarily paid many installments of child support. Surely we cannot hold him to be in a worse position for having voluntarily complied with a legal obligation in part, while giving the benefit of the doctrine to parties who neglect their obligations entirely. The defense of laches is not available only to those who were unaware of, or contested their legal obligation.
Since in my view this case falls well within the proper scope of the laches doctrine, I would reverse.3

. However, the unhappiness of a majority of a division is insufficient to effect a change in that law. M. A. P. v. Ryan, D.C.App., 285 A.2d 310 (1971).

. It is usually required that the detrimental change in position have been made in reliance on the former spouse’s delay in bringing a claim. See Amidon v. Amidon, supra, and cases cited at Annot., 5 A.L.R. 4th 1015, § 6 (1981). Certainly Mr. Jasper’s death was not a voluntary act taken in reliance on his former wife’s laxity. However, I do not think that the few cases heretofore decided in this jurisdiction exhaust the circumstances that constitute the injustice calling for application of the laches doctrine. As indicated in the text, I think the death of the obligor is a circumstance that militates in favor of the conclusion that to recognize the stale claim would be an injustice satisfying the third requirement of Amidon and Schmittinger.

. Since the majority reaches a contrary result, it will be necessary for the trial court to determine what part of the arrearages are uncollecti-ble due to the expiration of the judgments on which they are based. As noted by the majority, the standards regarding the life of child support judgments are discussed in Lomax v. Spriggs, D.C.App., 404 A.2d 943 (1979). I would add only that, under that case, not all child support installments remain collectible for twelve years after they become due in the years spanned by this action due to legislative changes in the statute of limitations.