Opinion
No. 3-895 / 03-0488.
Filed January 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen Romano, Judge.
Adrien Rumley appeals the district court's order for back child support. AFFIRMED.
Kent Balduchi, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Catherine Dietz-Kilen of Harrison Dietz-Kilen, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Adrien Rumley appeals the district court's order of back child support in the amount of $15,900, claiming the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative the claim for back child support is barred by the doctrines of laches and waiver. We affirm.
Background Facts.
Sherrie Davis-Bruce and Adrien Rumley were never married, but have a child together, Robert, born April 25, 1989. Adrien was not aware Sherrie was pregnant until after their relationship ended as she moved away for college. Eighteen months after Robert's birth, Sherrie phoned Adrien and told him for the first time of the child. During the conversation, Adrien questioned the paternity. After the phone call, neither party attempted to contact the other until Sherrie filed a petition for paternity, child support, and back child support on May 30, 2002. Finding Adrien to be the father, the district court awarded Sherrie sole legal custody and ordered Adrien to pay child support. On November 19, 2002, Sherrie filed an application for back support and maintenance. The district court subsequently ordered Adrien to pay back child support in the amount of $15,900. Adrien appeals this order.
Scope of Review.
Our scope of review for actions tried in equity is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Although not bound by the trial court's determination of factual findings, we will give considerable weight to them, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g). However, the scope of review of rulings on subject matter jurisdiction is for correction of errors at law. Keokuk County v. H.B., 593 N.W.2d 118, 122 (Iowa 1999).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Adrien claims that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order for back child support because the subject was originally raised in Sherrie's petition for order of paternity. Adrien argues that because the district court omitted an award for back child support and Sherrie filed neither a motion to enlarge or amend findings pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) nor a notice of appeal, the district court did not retain subject matter jurisdiction to hear Sherrie's application for back child support. Sherrie asserts, however, that the issue is actually issue preclusion not subject matter jurisdiction. Because issue preclusion was not raised at the time of trial, Sherrie contends the issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the matter or proceedings belong, not merely the particular case before the court. Smith v. Smith, 646 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 2002); Cargill, Inc. v. Conley, 620 N.W.2d 496, 501 (Iowa 2000). Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by constitutional or statutory power. Hutcheson v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 480 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 1992). "The primary purpose of issue preclusion is to protect litigants from the `vexation of relitigating identical issues with identical parties or those persons with a sufficient connective interest to the prior litigation with an additional benefit of promoting judicial economy. Roland v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., N.W.2d, (Iowa Ct. App. 2003) (citing State ex rel. Casas v. Fellmer, 521 N.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Iowa 1994)). Therefore we agree with Sherrie that Adrien is actually arguing issue preclusion.
Issues not raised before the district court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997). Adrien did not assert a claim of issue preclusion at hearing nor in any motions. As such, we agree that this issue was not preserved for appeal.
Doctrines of Laches and Waiver.
Adrien next argues Sherrie's claim for back child support should be rejected based on the doctrines of laches and waiver.
Laches is an equitable doctrine. Essentially, the doctrine applies to those situations in which a party has delayed prosecution of a claim to the prejudice of the party against whom the claim is made. State v. Moret, 504 N.W.2d 452, 453 (Iowa 1993) (citation omitted). The district court found if that Adrien was prejudiced it was "of his own doing by not acting on the information given to him by [Sherrie]," not due to Sherrie's delay.
We too find no prejudice resulted due to Sherrie's delay in requesting back child support. See State ex. rel. Holleman v. Stafford, 584 N.W.2d 242, 245 (Iowa 1998). Adrien has been able to defer payment on all past support which should have been ordered paid to Sherrie, using the money for other purposes. Nor do we find an intent on the part of Sherrie to waive her claim to back child support. See Humboldt Livestock Auction, Inc. v. B H Cattle Co., 261 Iowa 419, 432, 155 N.W.2d 478, 487 (1967) (holding there must be an implication that party intended to waive or abandon right); Compare Anthony v. Anthony, 204 N.W.2d 829, 834 (Iowa 1973) (finding mother waived right to child support so long as father did not exercise visitation rights). The district court's order for back child support in the amount of $15,900 is affirmed.