The Rule of In re Marriage of Capos is that a family law order establishing child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly stated the relief sought in supporting documentation attached to the formal request, under circumstances where the opposing party received actual notice and filed a substantive response on the merits.
Appeal from judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County.
Defendant Appellant was Nicholas Capos — the ex-husband who sought to vacate a child support arrears order of $768,748.65.
Plaintiff Respondent was LaShelle Capos — the ex-wife who sought confirmation of unpaid child support from April 1998 to August 2020.
The suit sounded in family law dissolution and child support enforcement. Nicholas cross-claimed for property division and compensation for lost personal property.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Nicholas and LaShelle divorced under a 1998 legal separation judgment requiring Nicholas to pay $2,000 monthly child support until their daughter turned 18 in August 2010. Nicholas allegedly never paid any child support. In 2019, LaShelle filed for dissolution and in 2020 requested an order confirming Nicholas owed $768,478.65 in unpaid support plus interest. Nicholas opposed, claiming he had made payments through other means, but failed to appear at the August 2020 hearing while incarcerated.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Nicholas's 2024 motion to vacate the 2020 child support arrears order, ruling that the motion was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and Family Code sections 3690-3691, having been filed more than four years after the original order.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the 2020 child support arrears order was void for lack of due process based on allegedly defective notice 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 actual notice of the relief sought through LaShelle's supporting declaration attached to her request for order, and he filed a substantive response addressing the merits, constituting a general appearance that waived any notice objections.
The case is inapplicable when the opposing party truly lacked notice of the specific relief sought, did not file any response or make a general appearance, had their default taken, or when the requesting party failed to specify the relief sought in any supporting documentation.
The case leaves open whether different due process standards might apply when a party is incarcerated and claims inability to prepare for hearings or secure counsel, and what specific procedural safeguards might be required for incarcerated parties in family law proceedings.
Counsel
For Appellant: Law Offices of Allan R. Frumkin, Allan R. Frumkin
For Respondent: Sierra Law Office of David L. Axelrod, David L. Axelrod