Ostler

Ostler v. Vroenen

Good Law
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 860·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 3714·2001 Daily Journal DAR 13357·94 Cal. App. 4th 1176·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10734
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 27, 2001No. A094067California2,269 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kay, J.

Appellant Kim Ostler seeks to collect past due child support from her former husband, respondent George Vroenen. The trial court found *1178 she was estopped from collecting the portion of the arrearage that accumulated when she actively concealed the whereabouts of the parties’ children.

We conclude the defense of estoppel based on concealment was not available in this case because the concealment ended when the children were still minors. We reverse the order of the trial court.

Background

The marriage of Kim and George Vroenen was dissolved in 1990. Kim Vroenen now uses the name Kim Ostler; we will refer to her as “Ostler” and Mr. Vroenen as “Vroenen” throughout the remainder of this opinion.

Ostler and Vroenen had two sons, Mathew (bom in April 1978) and Gary (bom in August 1980). In connection with the dissolution of the marriage, Vroenen agreed to pay child support in the amount of $600 per month ($300 per child). In early 1990, he stopped making payments. He resumed paying child support in June 1994.

In September 1999, Ostler, with the assistance of the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office, filed a motion to collect child support in arrears. She alleged…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.