Spellis

Plaintiffs, an ex-wife and her adult children, asserted novel theories of recovery in tort against their former spouse and father in an action for compensatory and punitive damages based on his 16-year evasion of his support obligation. The court sustained a demurrer to all causes of action without leave to amend and dismissed the thrice-amended complaint. We affirm.

I

Plaintiffs alleged, and we assume for purposes of review, the following facts: Patricia Spellis and James Lawn were married in Ohio in 1952. They obtained an Ohio divorce in 1963 and Patricia was awarded custody of the couple’s four young children. James was ordered to pay $40 per week in child support.

James made no payments, moved to California and asked Patricia to remarry him here. She did, in May 1964. Three months later they separated and James filed an action for separate maintenance and for custody of the children, then ages 11, 8, 3 and 2. Patricia cross-complained and was awarded custody of the children, $50 a week total child support and $10 a week spousal support.

On September 24, 1964, immediately after the court order, James went “into hiding” and changed his name. He failed to make the…

I reluctantly concur in the result. The plaintiffs waited too long to file suit. And this is true despite the fact a 10-year statute of limitations exists for the collection of judgments and commences to run *1082 with each nonpayment of child support. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.020, subd. (b).) The suit here is not for collection, but for resulting damages and other ancillary torts.

However, the plaintiffs could have stated a cause of action. Violation of a statutory duty is generally actionable in tort regardless of whether the statute provides a specific civil remedy. (Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 651 [ 320 P.2d 16 , 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 ]; In re Marriage of McNeill (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 548, 556-558 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 641 ]; Laczko v. Jules Meyers, Inc. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 293, 295 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 798 ].)

A petition for a rehearing was denied May 23, 1988, and appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 13, 1988.

Patricia Herzog for Plantiffs and Appellants.

Hunt, Colaw & Roe and Mario W. Mainero, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

WALLIN, Acting P.J.

Plaintiffs, an ex-wife and her adult children, asserted novel theories of recovery in tort against their former spouse and father in an action for compensatory and punitive damages based on his 16-year evasion of his support obligation. The court sustained a demurrer to all causes of action without leave to amend and dismissed the thrice-amended complaint. We affirm.

Plaintiffs alleged, and we assume for purposes of review, the following facts: Patricia Spellis and James Lawn were married in Ohio in 1952. They obtained an Ohio divorce in 1963 and Patricia was awarded custody of the couple's four young children. James was ordered to pay $40 per week in child support.

James made no payments, moved to California and asked Patricia to remarry him here. She did, in May 1964. Three months later they separated and James filed an action for separate maintenance and for custody of the children, then ages 11, 8, 3 and 2. Patricia cross-complained and was awarded custody of the children, $50 a week total child support and $10 a week…