Strom v. Artega CA3

Filed 5/5/14 Strom v. Artega CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

SCOTT C. STROM, C070232

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SFS023817)

v.

TERESA ARTEAGA,

Defendant and Respondent;

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Intervener and Respondent.

A father appeals an order establishing that he owes $262,276.32 in child support arrearages and interest. As he did in the trial court, he claims that the mother (1) agreed to terminate his support obligation, (2) concealed the child, and (3) concealed her right to support arrearages in her bankruptcy case. The trial court, however, considered each of these factual claims and properly applied the law. Therefore, we affirm.

1

FACTS AND PROCEDURE Steven M. Strom was born in May of 1993 to Teresa F. Arteaga (Mother) and Scott C. Strom (Father), who were never married. In 1997, the superior court ordered Father to pay $948 per month in child support to Mother. Father, however, failed to pay support and, by late 2009, owed Mother a substantial amount of support arrearages. In 2010, Father filed an application for order to show cause to vacate the arrearages, naming Mother and Placer County Department of Child Support Services. Mother responded by requesting to have support arrearages established by the court. The court held a contested hearing on child support arrearages. In Father’s statement of issues and contentions for trial, he claimed that (1) Mother is equitably estopped from asserting her right to child support arrearages because of an agreement he alleged was made between Mother and Father in 1996 that she would not seek child support and he would abandon efforts to have visitation with the child, (2) Mother intentionally waived her right to receive child support by concealing the child, and (3) Mother is judicially estopped from asserting her right to child support arrearages because she did not list the arrearages as an asset in her 2008 bankruptcy case. After trial, the court filed a tentative decision holding that (1) Mother is not equitably estopped from asserting her right to child support arrearages because there was no agreement between the parties to terminate payments, (2) Mother did not conceal the child and therefore did not intentionally waive her right to receive child support, and (3) Mother is not judicially estopped from asserting her right to child support arrearages because (a) Father failed to establish that the child support arrearages should have been listed as an asset in Mother’s bankruptcy case and (b), even if the arrearages should have been listed, there was no evidence that Mother acted in bad faith. Father filed a request for statement of decision asking the trial court to further explain its reasoning on the controverted issues. Father also asked the court to make findings concerning additional issues not necessary to resolution of the controverted legal