Yet Another Child Support Opinion: Laches and Life Insurance

       A third child support opinion in one month has been issued.  In a case published Friday, the New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed an alleged agreement to modify child support, whether life insurance proceeds constitute income for the purposes of child support, and when a retroactive change in child support can be made.

     The New Hampshire Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in the recent Nichols case and previous In the Matter of Laura and Scott that an agreement between parents to modify child support is not enforceable in court.  This case, In the Matter of Mary Beth Larocque and George W. Larocque, addressed the argument that laches should create an exception, and make an agreement between the parties enforceable by a court.

   

     Laches means undue delay.  It means that the person raising the issue to the court has waited too long, making it unfair, or prejudicial to the other party.  Friday's opinion, quoting another case, says, "Laches is an equitable doctrine that bars litigation when a potential plaintiff has slept on his rights.” 

     Mrs. Larocque claimed that Mr. Larocque was in contempt of the last child support order because he unilaterally reduced his child support after one of the children graduated from high school.  Since seven years had passed, Mr. Larocque argued that laches barred Mrs. Larocque from claiming that there had been no agreement.  He also argued that she had agreed to the change in child support because she cashed the child support checks.  

     The Court detailed its analysis of the laches argument in this case.  It identified four factors that a court needs to consider when it decides whether to apply a laches defense: "(1) the knowledge of the plaintiffs; (2) the conduct of the defendants; (3) the interests to be vindicated; and (4) the resulting prejudice.”  The Court also reiterated the standard: "The party asserting laches bears the burden of proving both that the delay was unreasonable and that prejudice resulted from the delay, (both quotes from Thayer v.Town of Tilton, 151 N.H. 483, 486 (2004)). 

    The Court did not find that laches applied in the Larocque case.  Once again the Court has been consistent in its holdings that an agreement between the parties to modify child support is not enforceable and has not permitted any exception.

     This opinion also held that the life insurance proceeds Mr. Larocque received after the death of his second wife should be considered income for the purposes of calculating child support.

    The one argument with which the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Larocque was that his child support modification should be made retoractive to when the older child turned 18 or graduated from high school.  This decision follows the Court's Nicholson opinion issued earlier in August.