County of Orange v. White
Filed 12/29/09 County of Orange v. White CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
COUNTY OF ORANGE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT STOREY WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. | G041472 (Super. Ct. No. 496691) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Duane T. Neary, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Motion for judicial notice. Order affirmed. Motion granted.
Robert S. White, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Douglas M. Press, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Reynaga and Mary Dahlberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Robert Storey White appeals from the denial of his motion to reinstate his drivers license. He argues that the judgment ordering him to reimburse plaintiff County of Orange for public support payments made for the care of his children expired. Because of statutory changes discussed below, the judgment did not expire and, because defendant failed to satisfy the judgment, he is not entitled to a return of his drivers license.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1986, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against defendant on behalf of his two minor children, seeking a declaration of his paternity and a judgment to reimburse plaintiff for public assistance provided for defendants children; it also sought an order that defendant continue to pay child support. In July 1989, the court issued an order requiring defendant to reimburse plaintiff the sum of $8,133.50, payable at $100 per month. A year before, in a family law action brought by the mother of defendants children, the court denied child support and ordered defendant to pay $300 per month in spousal support. (We grant defendants motion to take judicial notice of the document containing this information.) The record is silent as to the basis for the $8,133.50 order but the parties appear to agree that this was for public payments made while the children were placed with a foster family by the Juvenile Court after the earlier order.
Although the record is also silent as to when it occurred, defendants drivers license apparently was suspended under Family Code section 17520 because of his failure to make the ordered payments to plaintiff. In any event, in 2008 defendant filed a motion to review plaintiffs denial of a release that would entitle him to the return of his license.
The Orange County Department of Child Support Services filed a declaration in opposition, stating that defendant was in default on his obligations under the 1989 order. Upon defendants refusal to complete a current income and expense declaration, the court ordered his motion off calendar. He subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. The record is silent as to whether this motion was ever heard. Both parties accept the order as being, in effect, a denial of defendants motion to restore his drivers license and we will treat it as such.
DISCUSSION
The only issue raised in the opening brief is whether the 1989 order expired in 1999 under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020. Section 683.020, subdivision (a) provides that a judgment is not enforceable, except in circumstances not relevant here, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of entry of a money judgment. There is no dispute that the judgment was never renewed. Defendant contends that the $8,133.50 order is a money judgment subject to this statute. Family Code section 17402, enacted in 1999, encompasses the public payments of the type involved here. Family Code section 150, enacted in 1992, under an amount owing pursuant to Section 17402 is support and thus not a money judgment.
Moreover Family Code section 291, subdivision (a), provides a judgment for child support made under the Family Code is enforceable until paid in full . . . . Section 291 also states that a judgment for child or spousal support need not be renewed and failure to do so has no effect on the enforceability of the judgment. (Fam. Code, 201, subds. (a), (b).) Although this section was not adopted until 2006, former Civil Code section 4390, subdivision (h), as in effect in 1992, provided: Support refers to an obligation owing on behalf of a child . . .; or an amount owing pursuant to Section 11350 of the Welfare and Institutions Code [now Family Code section 17402]. It also includes past due support or arrearage when it exists.
Thus, after 1992, it no longer was necessary to renew a judgment to reimburse plaintiff for public payments made on behalf of children. Defendant relies on Crider v. Crider (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 227, which held that a judgment for reimbursement of public assistance is not a support order but rather a money judgment. But Crider does not discuss the effect of the 1992 amendment to Civil Code section 4390, subdivision (h), presumably because the events upon which the decision was based preceded adoption of the amendment. This is recognized in County of Monterey v. Banuelos (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1305, which notes the landscape changed after Crider based on the revised definition of support in Family Code section 150 to include current and past due child support.
Without citing any supporting authority, defendant asserts that the changes in the statutes violated his right to due process. His arguments are not supported by authority or reasoned legal argument or both. As a result, those issues are waived. (In re Marriage of Ackerman (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 191, 214.)
Defendant cited additional bases for his appeal in his reply brief and at oral argument. We will not consider points raised on appeal for the first time in the reply brief or at oral argument. (Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 765-766; Bonshire v. Thompson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 803, 808, fn.1)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The motion for judicial notice is granted. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.
RYLAARSDAM, J.
WE CONCUR:
SILLS, P. J.
MOORE, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
