California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re Marriage of Danielle and Lewis Allen is that parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in place, under circumstances where the obligor seeks to enforce an accord and satisfaction agreement for less than the full arrearage amount.

Appeal from order denying request for order to enforce alleged agreement in Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County.

Defendant Appellant was Lewis Allen — the non-custodial parent who sought to enforce an alleged accord and satisfaction agreement to resolve his child support arrearages for approximately half of the amount owed.

Plaintiff Respondent was Danielle Brown née Allen — the custodial parent who received partial payment but refused to sign a stipulation waiving the remaining child support arrearages.

The suit sounded in family law dissolution enforcement. The dispute involved enforcement of an alleged agreement to satisfy unpaid child support arrearages.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were: Lewis and Danielle divorced in 1996 with four children (ages 5, 9, 10, and 12). Lewis was ordered to pay family and child support totaling thousands monthly but failed to comply, moved to Utah and then out of the country to avoid payments, and accumulated approximately $545,000 in unpaid support and interest by 2020. Their youngest child reached majority in 2008. In 2020-2021, Lewis offered and paid Danielle $272,500 (approximately half the total owed) but Danielle refused to sign a stipulation waiving the remaining arrearages.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Lewis's request for order to enforce the alleged accord and satisfaction agreement, ruling that the parties were unable to agree on the stipulation, there was no binding agreement to resolve the arrearages, and any accord and satisfaction was unenforceable because there was no "bona fide" dispute concerning the amount of Lewis's arrearages.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether parents can contractually waive child support arrearages after the child reaches majority through an accord and satisfaction agreement 2. Whether there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding of no enforceable agreement

The Appellate Court held that parents cannot contractually waive past due child support arrearages even after children reach majority, extending the prohibition from In re Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M. The court found no bona fide dispute existed regarding the arrearage amount where the obligor acknowledged owing the principal but disputed only interest and penalties, and no final enforceable agreement was reached where the parties never executed a stipulation despite multiple drafts and revisions.

The case is inapplicable when there is a genuine bona fide dispute about the principal amount of child support arrearages owed (not merely disputes about interest or penalties), or when a custodial parent actively conceals children from the non-custodial parent until majority as in In re Marriage of Damico.

The case leaves open whether different public policy considerations might apply to distinguish between arrearages on active support orders versus inactive orders where children have reached majority, and the specific circumstances that might constitute a "bona fide dispute" sufficient to support an accord and satisfaction of child support arrearages.