OCR Text |
Show ZT The Daily Herald Child support debt arguable QUESTION: years ago I had a brief relationship with a woman who became pregnant. By the time the baby was born we were no longer seeing each other, and she told me to get lost. She said she hated me, wanted nothing more to do with me and would take care of this child herself. 1 did not know what else to do so I stayed away. Eventually I got married and started a family of my own. Now, out of the blue, I was served with a Summons and Petition for paternity and child support, which includes three years of back support. That adds up to several thousands of dollars. I have no problem paving support if this is my child, but is it fair to make me pay for those years past when she was the one to refuse my help? ANSWER: It is appropriate to point out that child support money can fall into two separate categories: First, the current and ongoing right of a child to receive support money from a parent; and second, the right to receive reimbursement for support of a child after that has been done. A child's right to receive current or future support is his or her own and "is not subject to being bartered aw ay or estopped, or in any way defeated by the conduct of the parents or others." The state is also interested in these matters since a child's welfare is at stake. Regarding the right to reimbursement of past support, that right belongs to whoever furnished the support, the same as any other past debt. It is subject to negotiation, settlement, satisfaction or discharge in the same manner as any other debt. In paternity actions, such as V.ours, the claim for past child support in limited to four years by statute. However, four years :, of child support can still repre- -' sent a sizable debt. The Utah courts have held that this debt is subject to legal and equitable doctrines. This includes the doctrine of equitable estoppel. It was 1990 before the Court of Appeals first published a case clearly applying equitable estoppel under these circumstances. The doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents people from claiming a position that is unfair because of its inconsistency with a previous position. Specifically, to claim this doctrine as a defense to the past child support in this case, you must prove three elements. a m a. (MSd glares court in 1) A statement, admission, act or failure to act by a person (mother) which is inconsistent with the claim asserted later; 2) Cigarette flax sponsors seek veto Sales would be controlled by Utah Legislature SALT LAKE CITY (AP) The sponsors of a controversial 4.5-cehike in Utah's cigarette tax passed by the Utah Legislature want Gov. Mike Leavitt to veto their victory. Sen. Robert Montgomery, Ogden, and Rep. Jordan said an amendTanner, ment slipped into the bill by the Utah Food Industry, which has worked with lobbyists for the past two years in killing cigarette regulations, makes the bill unpalatable. At the time, Montgomery, a retired thoracic surgeon, wondered whether the seemingly innocuous amendment wasn't something "sinister." After consulting with attorneys, he and Tanner decided it could wreak havoc on regulating tobacco in Utah. So much so, they said, that they've opted to kill their own bill rather than let the amended law take effect. But first, they've asked Leavitt to place the issue on the nt Lorio D.g Fowlho r) L I hard-foug- ht pro-tobac- A Matter of Law the other person (father) rea- sonably acted or reacted, based on the first person's position; and 3) injury to the other person if the first person were now allowed to renounce the original position. In the 1990 case, the mother told a mutual friend she wanted nothing to do w ith the father. The father eventually married and incurred additional financial obligations. When the mother came back seven years later to collect back child support, the court said she was precluded bv equitable estoppel. In 1995 the Court of Appeals had a similar case w here the mother told the father directly she did not want his help. When she went on public assistance four years later, the state filed the paternity action in behalf of the mother. The court set current child support but again applied equitable estoppel to preclude reimbursement for past expenses incurred before the paternity claim was filed. In order for this doctrine to apply to your situation, you must be able to show to the court that she did tell you she did not want your assistance with this child, you relied on her statements, and you would be injured if she were allowed to reverse her position now. This w ill be a question of fact for the court. That means the judge will decide, based on the evidence you present, if that is what happened. The cases are very fact specific and conclusions should be drawn careful- iy. This column is for general information only. Individual facts will vary the advice given. DO NOT RELY on this information without consulting an attorney. Lone D. Fowlke is an attorney with Jeffs & Jeffs, P.C., Provo. Sunday, March 10, 1996 agenda of a special session to see if they can't resurrect it. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Mike Dmitrich, w ould place control of all tobacco sales with the Utah Legislature, much as liquor is now. It would prevent local governments from implementing their own smoking regulations. Tanner and Montgomery have learned that could undermine the Utah Indoor Clean Air Act, since some cities have passed laws more stringent than those required by the state. Moreover, any efforts by cities or counties to regulate the sale of like requiring cigatobacco rettes be kept behind the counter or would be negated. locked up "We had to pass it the way it was or lose the bill. ..The benefits of the bill are evident," Montgomery said. "(But) after legal advice, we see it was a more disastrous amendment than we had realized." Leavitt has not decided if he will veto the cigarette tax or any other bills, and probably won't until close to the deadline, said spokeswoman Vicki Varela. Nor has he decided to call a special ses- - "We had to pass it the way it was or lose the biiL.The benefits of the bill are evident. (But) after legal advice, we see it was a more disastrous amendment than we had realized." Sen. Robert Montgomery, Ogden : R-No- rth sion, although he's leaning in that direction. In addition, Leavitt has said he has problems with any kind of tax increase during a year when Utah saw new revenues and surpluses in excess of $500 million. The tax increase would boost state tax to 31 cents on a pack of 20 cigarettes, adding $4.8 million to the $25.5 million the cigarette tax already brings into state coffers. Proponents said it would disfrom smoking, courage teen-agebut proponents aid it was a thinly disguised "sin tax" to punish smokers. The additional money would be earmarked for one year to go to educational programs and fighting wildfires. After rs anti-smoki- that, it would revert to the General Fund. Dmitrich has been infuriated b1 the allegations that his amendment was a favor to the tobacco industry. He said it is logical for the stated to oversee tobacco the way it now' regulates liquor sales. Dmitrich did admit, however, that the amendment was written by; Utah Food Industry lobbyists. In addition, the Price Democrat" said he w as angered by the personal attacks that followed his change to the proposed law. The emotional debate drew' Senate President Lane Beattie from his podium to the floor the1! y session to" last night of the attack methods used by some ciga:, rette-ta- x supporters. Even so, hp," voted for the bill. 45-da- Jury acquits suspect in bar slaying ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) A jury late Friday night acquitted Anthony Ray Edwards in the July shooting death of a southwestern Utah bar manager. The panel deliberated for about 7 12 hours, beginning its review of the BlMMl- -T I.. I, II. H.,,,.,,1 , evidence in the case at 3:30 p.m. and reaching its verdict about p.m. Fellar's Apparently, jurors were swayed by defense attorney Gary Pendleton's closing argument that prosecutors had left too many unanswered questions about the July 30 slaying of Thomas Foard. "I submit that there was somebody in the bar after Anthony left it," Gomefl Beef 1 1 fl mW ffifi Pendleton said. "Anthony Edwards is not a saint, but he is not a murderer." Chief prosecuting attorney Brent Langston asked for a conviction, arguing that something "only the defendant knows" happened between Edwards and Foard "the straw that snapped the camel's back." Edwards left the bar, taking the door keys, and came back with his Lorcin pistol and shot Foard in the head, Langston said. Earlier Friday, Edwards, 36, testified that he was innocent, and left Utah about the time of the slaying not because he was involved, but because he had broken up with a girlfriend. .380-calib- er A surprise open house will be held ago. He served on many commit for Glade W. Gillman in honor of tees and has been active in his his 75th birthday. Friday March church and community. Glade likes to travel with BYU 15th, 7 P M. to 9 P.M. at the Womens Culture Center 310 If. and follow the teams. He is also an avid golfer and is a member of 500 N. Provo, VT. Glade has been a lifetime resi- the "Over the Hill Gang. " Hisfamdent of Orem, UT. He made his ily invites all his relatives, friends living in the horticulture field fir and neighbors to join in this cele many years, retiring a few years bration. Lb. U Nalley's15 0z. Can Chili (jffl (MS 7 Varieties Case of 24 s18! Post 18 oz. pkg. Golden Crisp or13 0z. Pkg. Fruity or Cocoa Pebbles S Cereal Egs. (J Soft-N-Gent- le tim mmmHdte mflMmww (tnnnjftwnii mil) 4 Roll Pkg. retuiiiiii mum .-- xdki t ttnc (onrof" i mraem iPna IS few iipt tern 'Stop (Mpnimimn ,i. i(ii mii.ii ,(l if fX Choice Nsavl ""N (0 (OK |