In Re Marriage of Crookshanks

California Court of Appeal Aug 30, 1974 No. Civ. 43139Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of execution for unpaid child support and attorney's fees is valid, as the underlying judgment provides the necessary due process, and the Sniadach-Randone rule regarding prejudgment attachment does not apply to post-judgment execution. Furthermore, the court affirmed that support obligations for judgments entered before March 4, 1972, continue until the child reaches age 21.

Issues

Whether a writ of execution issued without a prior hearing violates procedural due process under the Sniadach-Randone rule.
Whether the interlocutory judgment of dissolution was subject to collateral attack.
Whether child support obligations under a 1971 decree terminate at age 18 or age 21.

Disposition. Affirmed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Sniadach-Randone rationale is inapplicable to a California writ of execution.”

“In the situation of a writ of execution, the judgment upon which it is issued establishes the obligation of the debtor.”

“The interlocutory judgment which forms the basis for the present writ of execution was issued on January 19, 1971. It consequently requires support for each child until the child reaches 21 years of age or until modified.”

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

In this appeal attacking a writ of execution for unpaid child support and attorney’s fees, appellant contends that: (1) the interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage upon which the writ is based is invalid; (2) the failure of the court to provide appellant the opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of the writ constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law as delineated in

Sniadach

Family Finance Corp.,

395 U.S. 337 [23 L.Ed.2d 349, 89 S.Ct. 1820], and

Randone

Appellate Department,

5 Cal.3d 536 [96 Cal.Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13]; and (3) the writ incorrectly calculates the amount due under the judgment. Finding no merit in appellant’s various contentions, we affirm the judgment (order) of the court.

On June 12, 1969, respondent (Wife) filed an order to show cause regarding custody, child support, and attorney’s fees in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Dissolution proceedings were apparently then pending between respondent and appellant (Husband). On December 8, 1969, the court, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, awarded temporary custody of the oldest child to Husband and temporary custody of the three younger children to Wife, reserving to both parties reasonable visitation rights. The court further ordered Husband to pay child support of $80 per month per child during the pendency of the action. On January 21, 1970, Husband filed an order to show cause why Wife should not be held in contempt for refusing to allow Husband to exercise his visitation rights. A hearing was conducted and Wife was found not guilty of contempt. On September 3, 1970, Husband filed a second order to show cause re contempt, also dealing with visitation rights. Wife again was found not guilty of contempt. Following a hearing on December 8, 1970, an interlocutory decree of dissolution was entered pursuant to stipulation on January 19, 1971. The interlocutory decree continued the custody and child support provisions previously ordered. On January 8, 1973, Wife filed an application for issuance of a writ of execution and order for unpaid child support between January 15, 1971, and November 1, 1972, and for unpaid attorney’s fees. The court ordered issuance of the writ of execution in the sum of $4,660,

In Re Marriage of Crookshanks

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief