Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; February 9, 1989; Maryland; State Appellate Court
Albert Harry Weidner appeals a Circuit Court order imposing a lien on his retirement benefits from the Social Security Administration, mandating that $94.60 be withheld monthly to satisfy future alimony obligations to Barbara Amelia Weidner and reduce his $12,660 alimony arrearage. The appellate court reviews three questions:
1. Whether the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) prevents modification of a support order from a sister state.
2. Whether the trial court erred by not considering a 1968 Florida decree under the full faith and credit clause, especially since the appellee did not claim the decree was invalid.
3. Whether laches barred the appellee’s action due to a 19-year delay, which allegedly prejudiced the appellant.
The court answers all questions negatively and affirms the lower court's decision.
The factual background reveals that Weidner and Barbara were married in 1942 and divorced in 1965, with the divorce decree requiring Weidner to pay child support and alimony. After moving to Florida, Weidner ceased payments, prompting Barbara to seek enforcement through URESA. The Florida court ordered him to pay without distinguishing between alimony and child support. In 1968, Weidner petitioned to reduce his support obligation, and the court ruled he had no further duty to support his emancipated children but found him in arrears for prior payments.
Support payments mandated by a July 27, 1965, court order for the Respondent are terminated as of April 2, 1968. The Respondent is required to pay $131.25 in total arrears, starting with monthly payments of $40.00 from May 1, 1968, until the arrears are settled. Payments are to be made to the Clerk of the Court, and upon full payment, the case will be automatically dismissed. The court record indicates that the appellee did not receive a copy of the petition for reduction or the April 16, 1968, order, but the order was mailed to the Clerk of Baltimore City. The appellee testified that the last check from the appellant in 1968 indicated it was the final payment, and no efforts to collect alimony were made for 19 years. In 1986, after becoming eligible for Social Security, the appellee discovered a continuing alimony obligation owed by the appellant and subsequently filed a proceeding in 1987 in Anne Arundel County. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), adopted in both Maryland and Florida, aims to enhance the enforcement of spousal and child support obligations. It allows a person owed support to file a petition in their resident state, which is then forwarded to the state where the obligor resides. The responding state court can determine the existence and extent of the support obligation according to its law, and it may issue an order that differs from prior orders from the initiating state. However, URESA orders do not nullify existing orders from the initiating state that establish support obligations.
Section 88.281 of the Florida Statutes (1964) states that any support order issued by a Florida court as a responding state does not supersede prior support orders from divorce or maintenance actions. Payments made under either order must be credited against what is owed for the same period. This principle is illustrated in the case of Fla. Dept. of Health, Rehab. Sec. v. Ciferni, where the Florida court ordered a lesser child support amount than a previous North Carolina order, affirming that this choice did not affect the original judgment. The accumulated arrearages would still apply, with credits for payments made under the Florida order. This view is supported by various jurisdictions that uphold the antisupersession provision of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), allowing the initiating state to disregard the responding state's order when assessing arrearages or modifications.
The judgment from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on April 12, 1965, was upheld as not being nullified by Florida's subsequent orders. The court found that the appellee could enforce this judgment through a lien on the appellant's Social Security benefits. The appellant's claim that the court violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause was deemed without merit, as Florida's URESA statute affirms that orders from each state operate independently.
The appellant also argued that the doctrine of laches should prevent the appellee from collecting the alimony awarded in 1965. Laches requires showing both an undue delay and disadvantage to the party asserting the defense. Testimony revealed that the last payment check to the appellee in 1968 suggested it was the final payment, though the appellant did not recall making that notation.
Appellee accepted appellant's position as valid and initially felt no need to pursue further action or believed she had remaining rights. It was only upon reviewing her divorce decree in 1986 that she realized she was entitled to continuous support, leading her to file for enforcement of the alimony judgment. Appellant claims he was prejudiced by appellee's delay, asserting he would have adjusted his finances had he known of the $12,660 debt. However, he provided no evidence that he changed his circumstances based on the belief he was no longer liable for alimony. The court found no error in refusing to apply the doctrine of laches, noting that appellee had not sought arrears for over 12 years and acknowledged the limitations on judgment collections per applicable law. The judgment for future alimony enforcement was affirmed, with costs assigned to appellant. Additionally, Maryland laws regarding support orders and the definition of 'earnings' were referenced, confirming that Social Security payments are included.
