Spouse support abandonment defense - longer wedding - elderly bribe collection

Before the revision of January 1, 2003 of California Family Code No. 4502, lending (unreasonable delay with excessive prejudice) was a means of defense against back spouse support and collection of child support. However, on January 1, 2003, Family Law Section 4502 (c) abolished the defense of lending for back spouse support and child support. In addition, the aforementioned Article 4502 (c) was deleted in the California State Council, but Article 291 (d) of the Family Law was enacted as a substitute.
In the lawsuit of enforcement of judgment for the support of a child or spouse, the defendant may file an appeal and the court may, only Regarding any part of the judgment Borrowed Into a StateUnder family code section 291 (d)
Therefore, an alternative defense against waiver based on California Civil Code 3515 can be used to collect spouse and child postpaying arrears, but there is no longer a loan.
Intention to force support right and inconsistency delay:
In the common law law, for defense against spousal support collections excluded by the California State Council, Plescia's marriage (1997) 59 CA 4th 252, 257-258, 69 CR 2d 120, 123- 124, and Kordero's marriage (2007), 95 Cal. App. 4th 653, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787 is no longer a good law.
As a result, the spouse of the defendant - obligor can not protect the waiver. Waiver is defined as "the intentional abandonment of known rights or such Behavior We guarantee to guess such abandonment of rights and explicit consensus Or It is inferred from the situation showing the intention to give up. " Panno v. Russo 82 Cal. App. 2d 408, 412, 186 P.2 d 452.
Into With Paboojian's re-marriage (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 1434, 235 Cal Rptr. 65 Appeals Court stated, "Although evidence of abandonment is unclear ... (delay) (failure to meet the court order's approval of about 16 years) itself occurred under a divorce decision that is not a defense against rights Force payment ( Dimar vs. Di Marco (1963) 60 Cal. 2d 387, 294, 33 Cal. Rptr. 610), (b) Delays are inconsistent with intention to enforce the right to support evidence supporting the trial court's waiver of rights waiver.
Do not accept small support and 4 year delay:
But it is Hummer vs Hummer (2000) ___ Cal. App. "A mere consensus on the support of less children and spouses than those provided by the final dissolution judgment is not enough to abandon the collection of outstandings or otherwise restrict collections" It has said.
Into Hummer vs Hummer, AboveThe Court of Appeals held the right of issue in order to induce a reasonable belief that it was abandoned, unless you explicitly agreed to collect the unpaid amount, four years behind the immediate action I am willing to do it. " Pub-Jean, Above.
Time on the beach is not enough and you will escape from exemption:
As aforementioned Pub-Jean And Hummer, AboveA mere delay of time or passage of time is insufficient to abandon your spouse's support or restore it. There must be a lack of intention to enforce the right to support either an explicit agreement or an influence from a situation indicating an intention to abandon Graham vs. Graham, (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 678, cited Panno v. Russo, Above.
The same can be said for the defended beach defenses. Indeed, there are unreasonable delays on the beach, causing excessive prejudice to the party which enhances defenses to the beach. Plescia's marriage, Above.
(Author, Rome · P · MosquedaIn California, New York, Philippines I have practiced family law for over 20 years. He published a book: Marriage and its dissolution handbook. )
Related Photos



Comments
Post a Comment