Sanford v. Sanford

California Court of Appeal May 29, 1969 No. Civ. 32779Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while child support orders are not retroactively modifiable, a trial court has the authority to regulate the issuance of writs of execution to prevent the abuse of process. The appellate court modified the trial court's order to require a court hearing before the issuance of writs for past-due arrearages.

Issues

Whether the trial court had the authority to permanently restrain the collection of past-due child support arrearages.
Whether the trial court may restrict the issuance of writs of execution to prevent the abuse of process.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we agree with appellant that the court was without power permanently to prevent the collection of any past due arrearages, since, in this state, an order for child support is not retroactively modifiable.”

“But the court does have power to prevent the abuse of its processes.”

KINGSLEY, J.

In a proceeding held pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law (Code Civ. Proc., §§1650 et seq.), defendant, on June 16, 1964, was ordered to make payments to the court trustee for the support of his four children at the rate of $20 per week. On January 14, 1966, on an affidavit alleging that no payments had been made and that he was in arrears and delinquent in the amount of $1,540, defendant was cited to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. In that proceeding, it was developed that two of the children had been residing with him from June 15, 1965. On March 28, 1966, .the court trustee was ordered to credit defendant with respect to arrearages on account of those children and enforcement of the order of June 16, 1964, was suspended as to those two children. On the representation that defendant would pay an additional $1 per week on the net arrearage, the contempt was dismissed. The order, as thus modified, was confirmed on February 16, 1967, after a further hearing.

On March 22, 1967, the court trustee obtained an order for a writ of execution in the amount of $2,780. The affidavit filed in support of that order recited the original terms' of the order of June 16, 1964 ($20 per week) and made no reference to the credits ordered on March 2.8, 1966. $52.65 was recovered under that writ.

On June 27, 1967, in a proceeding for modification initiated by defendant, the court found that, as of that date, only one child—Annie—was still entitled to support: one daughter had

[537]

married; one son was in the army; and one son was at a youth center. The court then entered the following order:

‘

Defendant is ordered to pay $5 per week for the support of Annie payable each Saturday commencing July 1,1967.

“The Court Trustee is instructed to credit defendant’s account in accordance with the stipulation that will be worked out between the District Attorney and defendant’s attorney.

“The District Attorney is directed not to cause any Writs of Execution on defendant so long as he pays at least $5 per week. ’ ’

Sanford v. Sanford

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief