In Re the Marriage of Gonzales

California Court of Appeal Feb 9, 1989 No. B027755Published

Before: Johnson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that family law courts have jurisdiction to extend child support obligations beyond the age of majority pursuant to Civil Code section 196.5 and that the appellant was barred by res judicata from relitigating child support arrears.

Issues

Whether a family law court has jurisdiction to extend child support beyond a child's age of majority under Civil Code section 196.5.
Whether the appellant received adequate notice that the duration of child support was at issue in the modification proceeding.
Whether the appellant was barred by res judicata from relitigating the amount of child support arrears.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the superior court in a child support proceeding is authorized to extend a parent’s support obligations in accordance with the provisions of section 196.5.”

“it is implicit in every proceeding concerning the granting or modification of child support that the duration of such support is at issue.”

“Laurence was barred by res judicata from relitigating the issue of his child support arrears.”

Synopsis

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

[1200]

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Statement of Facts and Proceedings Below

On April 21, 1986, respondent Joyce Ellen Gonzales (Joyce) filed an ex parte application for wage assignment for support (the application) pursuant to Civil Code section 4701.

The application, which was filed under penalty of perjury, stated appellant Laurence David Gonzales (Laurence) was in arrears for child support payments in the amount of $1,425.32 as of April 15, 1986. The application requested an order directing Laurence’s employer to deduct $100 per month from his wages for 14 months plus a final payment of $25.32. The application further requested Laurence’s current child support payments of $900 also be deducted from his wages. The application stated Laurence was personally served with a notice of Joyce’s intent to seek a wage assignment 15 days prior to the filing of the application.

On April 22, 1986, the trial court entered an order granting the application. The order provided “[t]he support payments are in arrears in the amount of $1,425.32 as of April 15, 1986.” Laurence did not move to quash the order within the 10-day statutory period provided in section 4701, subdivision (b).

On August 29, 1986, over 90 days after the trial court’s order granting the wage assignment, Laurence filed an application for an order showing cause (OSC) seeking, inter alia, a determination of the amount of arrears in child support and a termination of the wage assignment. In the declaration accompanying the OSC, Laurence stated he was not in arrears for child support. He further stated his wages have been garnished since May 1986.

On December 11, 1986, Joyce filed an application for an order to show cause seeking an increase in child support for her three children. The order to show cause was subsequently amended to request a “reasonable” increase in child support. Laurence opposed the requested increase.

The trial court heard both orders to show cause on February 27, 1987. The trial court ruled Laurence was barred from relitigating the amount of his arrears since the issue was conclusively determined by the April 22 wage assignment. The trial court further ordered child support to be increased

In Re the Marriage of Gonzales

AI Brief

Synopsis

JOHNSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief