Foster v. Marshman
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*477OPINION
By the Court,
Manoukian, J.:
Appellant George Foster contends the trial court should have found that respondent Beverly Marshman was precluded from recovering child support arrearages due to equitable defenses he asserted. We disagree and affirm this portion of the order of the lower court. Appellant further contends that support payments were improperly allocated to the oldest debt first. We believe this contention has substantial merit, and reverse.
Pursuant to a divorce decree rendered in 1960 in Washoe County, George was ordered to pay Beverly thirty dollars per month for each of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Graham v. GrahamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Elkind v. ByckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Szamocki v. SzamockiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Jackson v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Peot v. PeotNevada Supreme Court · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division, Ex Rel. Valdez v. ValdezAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
- Albus v. AlbusDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Coogan v. FennellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- Faribault-Martin-Watonwan Human Services Ex Rel. Jacobson v. JacobsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Vix v. State of Wis. Ex Rel. VixNevada Supreme Court · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.