MEMORANDUM TO LITIGATION PARTNER FOR DOR, SALLY AND JOE
The basic conclusions of this memorandum dealing with the case of Harry v. Sally are as follows: (1) although there is considerable case authority for the enforcement of the existing support order, the equities of Harry's case against DOR and Sally in particular are quite strong and the trend of the law is against us; (2) we have solid procedural arguments, based on statutory law and recent cases, to support our position that Harry's defense against the Department of Revenue (DOR) is time-barred; and a close question is presented as to whether Harry's case against Sally and Joe is barred by the statute of limitations on fraud claims. Joe's case that he did not commit any fraud against Harry is strong, assuming his involvement is as stated, but Sally's is weak. In all likelihood, the Court will rule against us at least with respect to future support payments which Sally and Joe will be required to make.
1. Harry and Sally were married in 1989 and divorced in 1992. Sally was pregnant with little Harry at the time they were married and did not tell Harry that Joe was the father. (Harry assumed that the child was his). Harry was ordered at the time of the divorce to pay $75 per week in child support. At some time in 1993, the fact that Joe was the natural father was established through blood and genetic marker tests. Harry stopped paying child support after he learned that little Harry was not his son.
2. Sally and Joe were married in 1994. Joe adopted little Harry. Sally's welfare case was closed out in 1994, leaving the implication that Joe has the financial capacity (which we need to investigate further) to support little Harry.
3. Sally was on welfare at the time of the divorce and assigned to the Department of Welfare (DOW) her right to receive child support payments. As the subrogee of DOW, DOR sought to enforce the child support order against Harry, intercepted ...