Opinion
No. 59229-7-I.
October 22, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 91-3-02981-8, Christopher A. Washington, J., entered November 9, 2006.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Appelwick, C.J., and Cox, J.
To obtain relief on appeal, an appellant must demonstrate reversible error. In this appeal from a decision revising and vacating a judgment for back child support, the appellant challenges only one of several alternative theories argued in support of the motion to revise. Because the record does not indicate the court's basis for its decision, and because the alternative theories are not frivolous on their face, appellant's challenge to only one of the moving party's theories below is insufficient to carry her burden of demonstrating reversible error. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
Gale and Wade Webster divorced in 1992. The dissolution decree ordered Wade to pay $950 per month in child support for the Websters' three children. The support worksheets, which were incorporated by reference, listed a basic monthly support obligation of $431 per child, for a total of $1,293. The decree provided that support "shall be paid until the children reach the age of 18 or completes high school, whichever occurs last."
The parties' two eldest children turned 18 and graduated from high school in June 2002 and June 2004. After each graduated, Wade unilaterally reduced his support payments by one-third.
In June 2006, four years after Wade first reduced his payments, Gale filed a motion for $33,692 in back support, arguing that Wade's support obligation continued until the youngest of their children graduated from high school. Wade resisted the motion, arguing that his obligation for each child terminated when they graduated at age 18 and, alternatively, that Gale's claim was barred by laches and equitable estoppel.
A court commissioner granted Gale's motion and entered judgment for $33,692.43 in unpaid child support. Wade moved to revise, and the superior court reversed and vacated the judgment. Nothing in the record indicates the basis for the court's decision.
DECISION
Decisions regarding child support, including the exercise of a court's equitable powers, are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. A court's interpretation of a child support order, however, is a question of law that we review de novo.
State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder, 137 Wn. App. 417, 423, 154 P.3d 243 (2007); In re Marriage of Watkins, 42 Wn. App. 371, 375, 710 P.2d 819 (1985), review denied, 105 Wn.2d 1010 (1986).
Stokes v. Polley, 145 Wn.2d 341, 346, 37 P.3d 1211 (2001).
Gale's sole argument on appeal is that Wade could not unilaterally reduce his support payments without further action of the court. But Wade thoroughly briefed and argued alternative, nonfrivolous defenses below and on appeal. Gale completely ignores those theories on appeal. This omission is fatal.
Both laches and equitable estoppel are judicially recognized defenses to a claim for back support. Watkins, 42 Wn. App. at 375; In re Marriage of Capetillo, 85 Wn. App. 311, 316-21, 932 P.2d 691 (1997). Given Gale's four-year delay in seeking back support, we cannot say Wade's defenses were frivolous on their face.
So far as the record before us reveals, Gale essentially ignored these defenses below as well.
As the appealing party, it is Gale's burden to demonstrate reversible error in the decision below. If, as Gale alleges in her opening brief, the superior court rested its decision solely on a conclusion that Wade could unilaterally reduce his support payments, then her argument on appeal might demonstrate reversible error. But the record is silent as to the basis for the superior court's decision. Because the court may have relied on Wade's alternative theories, and because those theories are not frivolous on their face, Gale cannot carry her burden of demonstrating reversible error by simply arguing that one of Wade's theories was not viable. Rather, she had to show either that all of those theories were not viable or that the court erred in failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law delineating the basis for its decision. She has done neither. There being no showing of reversible error, the order vacating the judgment for back support must be affirmed.
See Thomas v. French, 99 Wn.2d 95, 104, 659 P.2d 1097 (1983), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1018 (2001) (error without prejudice is not grounds for reversal); Portch v. Sommerville, 113 Wn. App. 807, 810, 55 P.3d 661 (2002) ("in order for the error to be reversible, the appellant must demonstrate prejudice").
Wade's request for attorney fees on the ground that Gale brought these proceedings in bad faith is denied.
Affirmed.