Summary
The California Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying Nicholas Capos’s request to vacate a prior order establishing child support arrears and interest owed to LaShelle Capos. The court held that the 2025 order was appealable under the void-judgment exception and that Nicholas had adequate notice of the requested child support arrears despite the forms used. The court also modified the opinion to correct a typographical error and add a footnote concerning discrepancies in the stated amounts, without changing the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal from the 2025 order denying Nicholas's motion to vacate the 2020 child-support-arrears order was timely.
- Whether an order denying a motion to vacate an appealable order is itself appealable when the motion asserts that the underlying order is void for lack of due process.
- Whether the 2020 child-support-arrears order was void because the dissolution petition stated that there were no minor children and the request for order did not check the child-support boxes.
- Whether Nicholas's absence from the 2020 hearing and lack of counsel established a due-process violation.
Holdings
- The appeal was timely because Nicholas appealed from the May 19, 2025 order within the applicable period, rather than attempting to appeal directly from the 1998 judgment or the 2020 arrears order.
- An order denying a motion to vacate an appealable judgment or order is ordinarily not appealable, but it is appealable when the motion asserts that the underlying judgment or order is void and the order gives effect to that allegedly void judgment or order.
- The 2020 order was not void for lack of due-process notice because Nicholas had notice of the existing child-support obligation and of LaShelle's request to confirm the amount of arrears and interest, and he appeared and defended on the merits.
- The dissolution petition did not nullify the existing child-support order, and LaShelle was not required to request a new or modified child-support order because she sought enforcement and confirmation of arrears under the existing order.
Key quotations
“It is a fundamental concept of due process that a judgment against a defendant cannot be entered unless he was given proper notice and an opportunity to defend.” (7)
“opposing a motion on the merits[] ordinarily constitute[s] a general appearance” (8)
“the filing of the dissolution petition in 2019 did not nullify the child support order or absolve Nicholas of his obligation to pay child support.” (9)
“The instant case is a prime example of the foregoing; the petition which was served on [the husband] sought no monetary relief from him.” (11)
“The 2025 order is affirmed and LaShelle shall recover her costs on appeal.” (13)
Factual background
Nicholas and LaShelle Capos married in 1991 and had one daughter, born in 1992. Their 1998 judgment of legal separation incorporated an agreement requiring Nicholas to pay $2,000 per month in child support until the child reached the specified emancipation or age conditions. In 2020, LaShelle sought confirmation of 153 months of unpaid support and interest; Nicholas filed a written response disputing the arrears but did not attend the hearing. The superior court entered an order finding $296,774 in principal arrears and $471,404.65 in interest, and Nicholas later sought to vacate that order based on alleged lack of notice.
Procedural history
The parties' 1998 judgment of legal separation incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring Nicholas to pay $2,000 per month in child support. In 2020, after LaShelle requested confirmation of unpaid support arrears and Nicholas filed a written response on the merits, the superior court entered an order finding principal arrears of $296,774 and interest of $471,404.65. Nicholas did not appeal that order. In 2024, he moved to vacate it as void for lack of due process; the superior court denied the motion in 2025 as untimely, and Nicholas appealed. The Court of Appeal held the appeal timely and reviewable under the exception for orders denying relief from void judgments, but affirmed on the merits.