The Rule of In re Marriage of LaShelle and Nicholas Capos is that a judgment awarding child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly states the relief sought in supporting documents and the opposing party files a responsive pleading addressing the merits, under circumstances where boxes relating to child support on judicial council forms are not checked but the specific relief is nonetheless plainly articulated in accompanying declarations.
Appeal from order denying motion to vacate in Superior Court, Placer County.
Defendant Appellant was Nicholas Capos — the ex-husband who sought to vacate a prior order finding he owed child support arrears.
Plaintiff Respondent was LaShelle Capos — the ex-wife who obtained the child support arrears order.
The suit sounded in family law dissolution proceedings. Nicholas sought to vacate a 2020 order that found he owed $768,748.65 in child support arrears from a 1998 marital settlement agreement.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in 1998, a judgment of legal separation incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring Nicholas to pay $2,000 monthly child support until the child reached age 18 (which occurred in August 2010). In 2019, LaShelle filed for dissolution, and in 2020 sought an order confirming Nicholas owed $768,748.65 in unpaid child support arrears plus interest. Nicholas opposed the request but failed to appear at the August 2020 hearing. In 2024, Nicholas sought to vacate the 2020 arrears order claiming lack of due process.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Nicholas's motion to vacate the 2020 child support arrears order, ruling that the request was untimely as it was filed more than four years after the 2020 order was entered, in contravention of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and Family Code sections 3690 and 3691.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the 2020 child support arrears order was void for lack of due process based on LaShelle's failure to check certain boxes on judicial council forms regarding child support; 2. Whether the appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate is timely and appealable.
The Appellate Court held that the 2020 order was not void for lack of due process because Nicholas had adequate notice of the relief sought through LaShelle's supporting declaration that clearly stated she was seeking $768,478.65 in child support arrears, and Nicholas filed a responsive pleading addressing the merits, which constituted a general appearance waiving objections based on lack of notice.
The case is inapplicable when the requesting party provides no notice whatsoever of the relief sought, when a default judgment exceeds the relief specifically requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 580, or when the opposing party does not file any responsive pleading or make a general appearance.
The case leaves open questions regarding what constitutes adequate notice in family law proceedings when judicial council forms are incomplete but supporting documents provide clear notice, and the specific circumstances under which failure to check boxes on mandatory judicial council forms might constitute inadequate notice.
Counsel
For Appellant: Law Offices of Allan R. Frumkin, Allan R. Frumkin
For Respondent: Sierra Law Office of David L. Axelrod, David L. Axelrod