Dancy
Black v. Dancy
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Hollenhorst, J.
This case involves a delayed action for delinquent child support, brought 28 years after the initial child support order was made and 10 years after the child reached the age of majority. The trial court granted child support arrearages plus interest. We affirm.
*1146 I.
Facts and Procedural History
John and Kay 1 married on April 21, 1967. They had one son, John Edward Dancy, Jr. (John Jr.), bom on November 13, 1967, before they separated on September 23, 1968.
On March 7, 1969, an interlocutory judgment of divorce was entered, awarding custody of John Jr. to Kay, subject to reasonable visitation by John. Commencing April 1, 1969, John was to pay Kay $75 per month in child support, until John Jr. reached the age of majority, became self-supporting or until further order of the court. A final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on July 30, 1970.
On November 20, 1995, Kay filed an order to show cause to establish child support arrearages, including principal and interest. At trial, Kay sought support arrearages for 160 months, amounting to $12,000, plus $30,302.87 interest, for a total of $42,302.87. The 160 months consisted of the following periods: March…
Concurring Opinion
Ramirez, J.
I concur with the result achieved in the majority opinion. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s dicta regarding the applicability of laches as a defense to petitions for child support arrears.
*1161 I agree with the majority on the following points:
Because John is not entitled to the defense of laches under the facts of this case, we need not decide whether it is an available defense in actions on judgments for child support arrears. Statements of law that constitute general observations but are not necessary to the decision, in light of the facts of the case, are dicta, with no force as precedent. (Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1301 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 ].) Therefore, the majority’s conclusion on this point is dicta. (Cf. In re Marriage of Cutler (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 460, 478 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 156 ] (Cutler) [“We need not, and do not, decide whether the defense of laches is available in general as a defense to payment of a child support judgment, because under the facts of [this] case, laches is not available ... as a defense”].) Furthermore, the majority’s conclusion on this point is incorrect.