State v. Garcia

9 Citing cases

  1. In re the Paternity of Gloria v. Vallejo

    194 Ariz. 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    The court ruled that under Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., 120 Ariz. 417, 586 P.2d 978 (1978), the defense of laches could not apply to the State in matters affecting governmental or sovereign functions. ¶ 6 Vallejo moved for reconsideration, noting that in the recently decided State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527, 931 P.2d 427 (App. 1996), the court held that the equitable defense of laches could be applied against the State in child support arrearages cases in which the State was filing a derivative or third-party claim. He asked the trial court to reconsider its order and void the State's judgment against him. He also requested an award of his attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 25-809(E).

  2. Stiles v. Department of Pub. Hlth Human Serv

    10 P.3d 819 (Mont. 2000)

    While the Arizona appellate court did indeed make the statement set forth by the State, it did so in remanding the case for further proceedings on the Respondent's contention that no duty of support was owing under Arizona law. The case was cited by the same court in Arizona v. Perez (Ariz.App. 1996), 931 P.2d 427, to support a laches defense against the State of Arizona when the State failed to timely seek support from the non-custodial parent under an assignment like we have here. The Arizona court noted, "application of laches under this, it is hoped, exceptional scenario does not unduly interfere with the State's ability to pursue support arrearages in other cases, nor does it detract from the strong public policy of promoting the welfare of children."

  3. In re Loomis

    1998 S.D. 113 (S.D. 1998)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a fourteen-year delay in seeking support payments was unreasonable under the circumstances

    The fact that she waited fourteen years before bringing an action for child support also constitutes an unreasonable delay. In State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527, 931 P.2d 427, 428-29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996), the court held there was an unreasonable delay and laches applied because neither the mother nor the state sought child support for more than sixteen years. This was true, even though the father lived across the street from the mother's family. Id. at 429.

  4. In re re

    No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0151 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2015)

    "And the trial court, not this court, assesses credibility." Id.; see also State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527, 529 n.2, 931 P.2d 427, 429 n.2 (App. 1996) (credibility of witnesses primarily a matter for trial court's determination). ¶13 Here, although the currency was seized from Pacheco's possession, and he indicated to the officer it was his, the state's notice of forfeiture averred that the driver of the vehicle gave conflicting information about the intended use of the money and where the two were going. Then, at the hearing, Pacheco's explanation of how he had acquired a portion of the money changed from the sale of a 2005 Honda, as stated in his verified claim, to the receipt of a tax refund, which evidence itself was impeached.

  5. In the Matter of State Ex. Rel. Reitenour

    807 A.2d 1259 (N.H. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    The respondent has not asserted that he will suffer any particular hardship from having to meet the obligations imposed by the trial court's decree. Cf. State v. Garcia, 931 P.2d 427, 429 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1996) (finding hardship where paternity action not filed for more than sixteen years and father was self-employed as a scrap metal recycler, did not own a home, had a wife and six minor children and no savings or retirement plan); see also Annotation, Retroactive Child Support, 87 A.L.R.5th 361, 431 (2001) (collecting cases in which retroactive child support award was limited or precluded by laches). We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in determining that the petitioner's claim for retroactive child support was not barred by the defense of laches.

  6. City of Tempe v. Graystar Invs.

    1 CA-CV 22-0039 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2023)

    In Garcia, we applied laches against the state, noting that while "equitable defenses may not be asserted against the state when exercising its governmental or sovereign functions" laches was appropriate because the state brought a "derivative or third-party claim." 187 Ariz. 527, 529 (App. 1996). Garcia is inapplicable here because Tempe did not assert a "derivative or third-party claim," but sued to recover money due to the general fund.

  7. Morrow v. Morrow

    No. 1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2018)

    There is a strong public policy of promoting the welfare of children. State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527, 530 (App. 1996). There is no similar policy related to the consideration for spousal maintenance awards.

  8. Coburn v. Rhodig

    400 P.3d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ¶ 12 Our courts have found no public policy reason to preclude the application of equitable defenses to child support arrearages. See Ray , 163 Ariz. at 332, 788 P.2d at 65 ; State v. Garcia , 187 Ariz. 527, 530, 931 P.2d 427, 430 (App. 1996) (holding application of laches defense did not "detract from the strong public policy of promoting the welfare of children."). Requiring the party asserting equitable defenses to demonstrate them by "clear and compelling evidence" adequately protects the welfare of children.

  9. In re the Marriage of Yuro

    192 Ariz. 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 47 times
    Stating 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, "as a federal statute, preempts all similar state laws pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."

    ¶ 3 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's findings and will uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence. State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527, 931 P.2d 427 (App. 1996). Upon their separation in October 1981, a California court ordered Anthony to pay Francine $380 per child per month in child support and $800 monthly spousal maintenance.