Marriage of Clark v. Clark
335 P.3d 1254, 2014 OK CIV APP 82 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Equitable defenses, such as estoppel, may be invoked to bar a parent from recovering delinquent child support payments when that parent's own inequitable conduct, such as denying the other parent's paternity and visitation, directly caused the non-payment.
Facts:
- Mother and Father married in 1998 and had one child during the marriage.
- The parties divorced in 2002 using a consent decree that falsely stated there were no children of the marriage.
- From 2002 to 2009, Father voluntarily paid child support and exercised visitation with the child by mutual agreement, despite the absence of a court order.
- In June 2009, Mother unilaterally denied Father any further visitation with the child.
- Following the denial of visitation, Father stopped making his voluntary child support payments.
- Mother then denied that Father was the biological father of the child.
Procedural Posture:
- Father filed a motion in the trial court to modify the original divorce decree to establish custody, visitation, and child support.
- Mother filed a motion to dismiss, denying Father's paternity.
- Father commenced a separate declaratory judgment action to establish his paternity, which the trial court denied.
- An intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Father's paternity claim.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the lower courts, held that Father was the child's presumptive father, and remanded the case.
- On remand in June 2011, the trial court set a prospective child support obligation for Father.
- In February 2013, Mother filed a motion in the trial court to reduce an alleged child support arrearage to judgment for the period between June 2009 and June 2011.
- The trial court denied Mother's motion, finding her claim was barred by her 'unclean hands' and misrepresentations.
- Mother filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court also denied.
- Mother (Appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of her motions to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the equitable defense of estoppel bar a parent from collecting past-due child support for a period when she denied the other parent's paternity and visitation rights, directly causing the non-payment?
Opinions:
Majority - Joplin, J.
Yes. The equitable defense of estoppel bars a parent from collecting past-due child support under these circumstances. Child support proceedings are matters of equitable cognizance, allowing an obligor to invoke equitable defenses such as waiver, estoppel, and laches. The court found that Mother's conduct—specifically her false swearing in the divorce decree, her subsequent denial of Father's paternity, and her unilateral denial of agreed-upon visitation—induced Father's non-payment of support. Therefore, it would be inequitable to permit Mother to collect child support that was unpaid as a direct result of her own misrepresentations and actions.
Concurring - Hetherington, V.C.J.
Yes. The author concurs in the result but writes separately to express concern that applying equitable principles to child support orders creates a 'legal minefield.' The author would affirm the trial court's decision on the simpler ground that Father was under no legal obligation to pay support in the first place, as the original divorce decree stated there were no children of the marriage. Because his payments were entirely voluntary, there could be no legally enforceable 'arrearage' when he stopped paying.
Analysis:
This case reinforces that child support proceedings are governed by principles of equity, which can override seemingly mandatory statutory obligations. It establishes that a party's misconduct, or 'unclean hands,' can serve as a complete bar to recovering child support arrears. The decision serves as a powerful precedent against parents who attempt to use the denial of paternity or visitation as leverage, clarifying that such actions may estop them from later seeking financial remedies for the period affected by their conduct.
