What can you do when a person does not pay what the judge has ordered in a divorce judgment? The California Court of Appeal provided some answers last week in a published decision called Marriage of Goldman. In a 3-0 decision, a panel of justices based in San Diego held that when it comes to an order to pay money, the payor can get out of the obligation if the other side takes too long to enforce the judgment. This is called laches. But in order for laches to work, the person asserting that defense has to show prejudice caused by the delay in time.
In the Goldman case, the parties were divorced in 2009. In the judgment, the parties stipulated that they would file joint returns for the previous years of 2007 and 2008 with Wife getting the refunds; that two-thirds of the stock the couple acquired while married would be awarded to Husband (with Wife getting the remainder); that they would evenly split the patents issued from inventions Husband created during the marriage; and that they would split artwork they had acquired.
In 2010, Wife’s attorney wrote Husband’s attorney complaining about noncompliance. Husband responded, but then nothing really happened until Wie filed post judgment motions with the trial court in 2018 and 2010.
Husband responded by arguing “laches.” The judge agreed that a laches defense was potentially available to Husband against all of Wife’s claims. Indeed, Wife conceded that she failed to assert her rights, which left laches as the only issue. In order to determine whether laches applied, the judge had to decide whether Wife’s delay “was unreasonable and prejudicial to Husband.”
The trial judge found that Wife’s justifications for a delay in bringing her claims were not reasonable. The court further found prejudice because “’as a result of the passage of time, the evidence needed to rebut
The Court of Appeal conceded “[e]ach side makes some meritorious arguments.” But ultimately, Wife won and the case was remanded (i.e., sent back to the trial court for further proceedings) based on the Court’s interpretation of Family Code section 291. Based on that statute, the Court of Appeal preliminarily ruled in Husband’s favor that the laches defense was available because Wife was trying to enforce something other than a spousal or child support obligation. But the appellate panel found that the judge’s findings on prejudice were not supported by substantial evidence based on the record “at this stage of the proceedings.” (Emphasis added.) The justices explained that the record did not establish that evidence Husband may need to defend against Wife’s claims was actually unavailable. And as the party asserting the laches defense, Husband “bore the burden to ‘affirmatively demonstrate’ prejudice.” In other words, “he needed to show that the documents he believes he needs are unavailable due to the delay.” Providing guidance, the appeal court noted “this requires showing that his reasonable efforts to locate this evidence failed and that there is a nexus between the unavailability of the documents and the delay.”
The Court of Appeal’s decision was written by the Hon. William Dato. The trial judge was the Hon. Sharon Kalemkiarian.
Most of the case was certified for publication, which means it is precedent that must be followed by trial judges throughout California.