.webp)
Laches – a legal defense similar to the concept of the statute of limitations – is often brought up in various legal contexts. In the past, Maryland hasn’t seen this type of defense used in child support contexts, or family law contexts generally, but a new case occurred in which this defense was raised. A relatively recent case, Fludd v. Kirkwood (2021), involved two main issues – the issue of the viability of laches as a defense to granting child support based on a delayed action, and the issue of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. The issue regarding the viability of laches as a potential defense under Maryland law is significant, and so we will focus primarily on the court’s reasoning involved with the resolution of that issue. But, both of these issues were important, as we will discuss.
In this post, we will briefly summarize the core facts of this case, highlighting those facts which touch directly on the court’s resolution of the issue of laches, and then finish with a quick description of the court’s ruling and its significance.
Facts of the Case
The legal disputes between Ms. Kirkwood and Mr. Fludd were complex. When the couple first separated, in 2012, they had 1 child together, but another child was conceived in 2014. The mother first filed a complaint for custody in 2012, but then followed up with a motion for child support in 2016. The court didn’t consider this motion for child support until roughly 4 years later, in 2020. The court issued a child support order which included both a monthly amount ($2,101), plus arrearages amounting to a year ($25,212), and also an award for attorney’s fees ($8,000).
The father then went back to court in 2021 to contest this child support order from 2020. The father argued that the principle of laches prevented the court from awarding child support given the fact that a substantial period of time elapsed between the initial filing and the trial court’s decision.
The trial court concluded that, under the facts of this particular case, the principle of laches couldn’t be used to prevent such an award. The exact reasoning of the court on this point of laches was complex, and involves the weighing of multiple considerations. But, in the end, the court held that the conduct of the parties in this case was such that the child support order was very much consistent with the “best interests” of the child (a principle which ultimately supersedes other principles). And, the court held that personal jurisdiction over the defendant was proper in this case, again because of the particular facts involved. The father then appealed.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion
The appellate division upheld both determinations made by the trial court. In a lengthy opinion, the appellate court carefully went over the reasoning involved regarding the inapplicability of laches in this particular case. However, the appellate court also very deliberately pointed out that laches, as a defense, may still be potentially usable in other future situations. But, on the whole, Marylanders need to understand that the applicability of laches as a defense in child support contexts is quite limited. The court has various legal mechanisms in place, including the overriding principle of the best interests of the child, to ensure that acceptable outcomes are achieved.
This case clearly demonstrates the utility of having a skilled family law attorney during these types of custody disputes. No matter which side, either party stood to derive substantial benefits from the counsel of an effective family law attorney. Although the father lost on both of his arguments – and he may have potentially still lost even with effective counsel – good counsel is still the instrument which would have best contributed to a favorable outcome.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
To learn more about child support guidelines, child support modification requests, property division in general, or any other related family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
