laches doctrine in California

2016There must also be prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay or acquiescence by the plaintiff.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.) For a demurrer to be sustained based on the doctrine of laches, “both the delay and the injury must be disclosed in the complaint.” (Sangiolo v. Sangiolo (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 511, 514 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 27 ]; accord, Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351, 362 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 337 , 461 P.2d 617 ] [“Laches may be raised by demurrer, but only if the complaint shows on its face unreasonable delay plus prejudice or acquiescence.”].) In this case, th

2016There must also be prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay or acquiescence by the plaintiff.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.) For a demurrer to be sustained based on the doctrine of laches, “both the delay and the injury must be disclosed in the complaint.” (Sangiolo v. Sangiolo (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 511, 514 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 27 ]; accord, Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351, 362 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 337 , 461 P.2d 617 ] [“Laches may be raised by demurrer, but only if the complaint shows on its face unreasonable delay plus prejudice or acquiescence.”].) In this case, th

2023(See, e.g., Straley v. Gamble (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 533, 537 ; Luxury Asset Lending, LLC v. Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 894 , 913 [noting that application of laches defense “is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court 29 and such discretion usually goes undisturbed by the appellate tribunal”]; Piscioneri v. City of Ontario (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1046 [in the absence of “ ‘palpable abuses of discretion,’ ” a trial court’s “ ‘finding of laches will not be disturbed on appeal’ ”].) Elsewhere, the standard of review applicable to a trial court’s decision

2022To allow a laches defense in a legal action would be to override a time limit mandated by the Legislature.” (Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 ; see also Petrella, supra, 572 U.S. at Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how laches, based upon CalSTRS’s “unreasonable delay” (Miller, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 624 ), could apply to bar its right to reduce Teachers’ monthly pension benefits prospectively.

1959“A delay in rescinding a contract on the ground of alleged false representations which is the result of indulgence shown to the party perpetrating the fraud is not available as a defense in an action for rescission.” (Graham v. Los Angeles First N. T. & S. Bank, 3 Cal.2d 37, 44 [5] [ 43 P.2d 543 ].) In Lobdell v. Miller, 114 Cal.App.2d 328, 339 [10] [ 250 P.2d 357 ], the court, quoting from Williams v. Marshall, 37 Cal.2d 445, 455 [ 235 P.2d 372 ], said: “ ‘The courts have frequently declared that there is no artificial rule as to the lapse of time which will justify the application of the doc

1959“A delay in rescinding a contract on the ground of alleged false representations which is the result of indulgence shown to the party perpetrating the fraud is not available as a defense in an action for rescission.” (Graham v. Los Angeles First N. T. & S. Bank, 3 Cal.2d 37, 44 [5] [ 43 P.2d 543 ].) In Lobdell v. Miller, 114 Cal.App.2d 328, 339 [10] [ 250 P.2d 357 ], the court, quoting from Williams v. Marshall, 37 Cal.2d 445, 455 [ 235 P.2d 372 ], said: “ ‘The courts have frequently declared that there is no artificial rule as to the lapse of time which will justify the application of the doc

2025(See Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1157 [“A defendant must demonstrate three elements to successfully assert a laches defense: (1) delay in asserting a right or a claim; (2) the delay was not reasonable or excusable; and (3) prejudice to the party against whom laches is asserted”].) Indeed, one court has explained—in a case involving fraudulent service of process—that when there has been a “complete failure of service of process” “‘neither laches nor the ordinary statute of limitation may be invoked as a defense’ against an action or proceeding t

2025Laches “A defendant must demonstrate three elements to successfully assert a laches defense: (1) delay in asserting a right or a claim; (2) the delay was not reasonable or excusable; and (3) prejudice to the party against whom laches is asserted.” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things International, Ltd. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1157 .) 16 Respondent did not unreasonably delay the filing of the present lawsuit seeking recovery of its property.

1989Ill “ ‘Statutes of limitation, like the equitable doctrine of laches, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded and witnesses have disappeared.’ ” (Wood v. Elling Corp. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 353, 362 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 572 P.2d 755 ], quoting from Telegraphers v. Ry.

1989Ill “ ‘Statutes of limitation, like the equitable doctrine of laches, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded and witnesses have disappeared.’ ” (Wood v. Elling Corp. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 353, 362 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 572 P.2d 755 ], quoting from Telegraphers v. Ry.

1966It is there said, at pages 448-449 [ 182 P.2d 557 ] : “Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: ... ‘it is not designed to punish a plaintiff’ but is ‘invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice. ’ (Hiett v. Inland Finance Corp., 210 Cal. 293, 300 [ 291 P. 414 ].) To this latter point, the court said in Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620 , at page 625 [ 44 P. 1077 ] : ‘. . . it is never permitted to be invoked merely to aid a faithless trustee in consummating his wrong. ’ ’ ’ The defense of l

1966It is there said, at pages 448-449 [ 182 P.2d 557 ] : “Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: ... ‘it is not designed to punish a plaintiff’ but is ‘invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice. ’ (Hiett v. Inland Finance Corp., 210 Cal. 293, 300 [ 291 P. 414 ].) To this latter point, the court said in Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620 , at page 625 [ 44 P. 1077 ] : ‘. . . it is never permitted to be invoked merely to aid a faithless trustee in consummating his wrong. ’ ’ ’ The defense of l

2025Laches “‘“The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” [Citation.]’ (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 68 .).” (Drake v. Pinkham (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 400, 406 .) The premise of Jeff’s laches defense is that the delay in rescinding the repayment agreement resulted in the loss of witnesses, including his father, and Sue May, who was very old by the time of trial.

2021(See, e.g., Johnson, supra, 24 Cal.4th 61 ; Vernon, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d 710 .) 25 Although those decisions involve different factual contexts and thus trigger different timing and prejudice concerns, the general principles discussed in those cases involving the application of the laches doctrine apply equally in this case.

2024(Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 282 .) Where, as here, “ ‘ “the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals,” ’ ” “ ‘ “the question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law” ’ because ‘ “ the appellant’s evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient t

2021The theory is that, even if one has a just claim[,] it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend [against that claim] within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims . . . prevail[s] over the right to prosecute them.” ’ ” (Robert J. v. Catherine D. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1521 .) “[S]uccess on a laches claim is always uncertain because it is an equitable remedy that depends on ‘the facts and circumstances of the particular case.’ ” (In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 188 .) “Laches is an equitable, affirmative defense which requires

2006However, the court In re Marriage of Plescia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 252, 262 , 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ( Plescia ), held that the legislative changes in 1992 and 1993 did not eliminate the laches defense in actions for spousal support arrearages.

2006However, the court In re Marriage of Plescia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 252, 262 , 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ( Plescia ), held that the legislative changes in 1992 and 1993 did not eliminate the laches defense in actions for spousal support arrearages.

2022To allow a laches defense in a legal action would be to override a time limit mandated by the Legislature.” (Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 ; see also Petrella, supra, 572 U.S. at Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how laches, based upon CalSTRS’s “unreasonable delay” (Miller, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 624 ), could apply to bar its right to reduce Teachers’ monthly pension benefits prospectively.

2020To allow a laches defense in a legal action would be to override a time limit mandated by the Legislature.” (Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 .) Since Miller’s current claim is an action at law seeking damages for breach of contract, the laches defense is not available.

1999(Brown v. State Personnel Bd. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1158-1161 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; 6 accord, Stevedoring Services v. Prudential Lines, Inc. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 154, 158, 160 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 225 ] [applied federal law respecting the doctrine of laches]; Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center v. Department of Health Services (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1362 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 ] [addressed a different fiscal year than those addressed by the Supreme Court in Kennedy Medical Center, the court determined the period of the analogous statute of limitations (the four-year period for actions on a w

1999(Brown v. State Personnel Bd. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1158-1161 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; 6 accord, Stevedoring Services v. Prudential Lines, Inc. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 154, 158, 160 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 225 ] [applied federal law respecting the doctrine of laches]; Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center v. Department of Health Services (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1362 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 ] [addressed a different fiscal year than those addressed by the Supreme Court in Kennedy Medical Center, the court determined the period of the analogous statute of limitations (the four-year period for actions on a w

2006Indeed, success on a laches claim is always uncertain because it is an equitable remedy that depends on "the facts and circumstances of the particular case." ( Austin v. Hallmark Oil Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 718, 734 , 134 P.2d 777 .) Assertion of a laches defense seeks an equitable act of grace to relieve the burden of an existing obligation.

2006Indeed, success on a laches claim is always uncertain because it is an equitable remedy that depends on "the facts and circumstances of the particular case." ( Austin v. Hallmark Oil Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 718, 734 , 134 P.2d 777 .) Assertion of a laches defense seeks an equitable act of grace to relieve the burden of an existing obligation.

2006Discussion A. Retroactive Application Of Section 4502(c) If, in light of the lapse of time and other relevant circumstances, a court concludes that a party's failure to assert a right has caused prejudice to an adverse party, the court may apply the equitable defense of laches to bar further assertion of the right. ( Nealis v. Carlson (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 65, 69 , 219 P.2d 56 .) The parties agree that section 4502(c), by its terms, bars the laches defense in a private action to enforce a child support order.

2006Discussion A. Retroactive Application Of Section 4502(c) If, in light of the lapse of time and other relevant circumstances, a court concludes that a party's failure to assert a right has caused prejudice to an adverse party, the court may apply the equitable defense of laches to bar further assertion of the right. ( Nealis v. Carlson (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 65, 69 , 219 P.2d 56 .) The parties agree that section 4502(c), by its terms, bars the laches defense in a private action to enforce a child support order.

2006(See, e.g., DiMarco v. DiMarco (1963) 60 Cal.2d 387, 394 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 610 , 385 P.2d 2 ; Leiden v. Hudson (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 72, 74-75 , 156 Cal. Rptr. 849 .) In 1992 and 1993, however, the Legislature made all support orders enforceable "until paid in full." (Civ.Code, former § 4384.5, now Fam.Code, § 4502, subd. (a).) [5] In doing so, the Legislature *53 cast some doubt on the viability of the laches defense in support actions.

2006(See, e.g., DiMarco v. DiMarco (1963) 60 Cal.2d 387, 394 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 610 , 385 P.2d 2 ; Leiden v. Hudson (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 72, 74-75 , 156 Cal. Rptr. 849 .) In 1992 and 1993, however, the Legislature made all support orders enforceable "until paid in full." (Civ.Code, former § 4384.5, now Fam.Code, § 4502, subd. (a).) [5] In doing so, the Legislature *53 cast some doubt on the viability of the laches defense in support actions.

1947(Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Ingersoll, 158 Cal. 474, 486 [ 111 P. 360 ].) Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: It is not applied strictly between near, relatives (Butler v. Hyland, 89 Cal. 575 , *449 582 [ 26 P. 1108 ] ; Rottman v. Rottman, 55 Cal.App. 624, 632 [ 204 P. 46 ]); it is of little significance in the case of a resulting trust (Moultrie v. Wright, 154 Cal. 520, 526 [ 98 P. 257 ]) ; and “it is not designed to punish a plaintiff” but is “invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted i

1947(Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Ingersoll, 158 Cal. 474, 486 [ 111 P. 360 ].) Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: It is not applied strictly between near, relatives (Butler v. Hyland, 89 Cal. 575 , *449 582 [ 26 P. 1108 ] ; Rottman v. Rottman, 55 Cal.App. 624, 632 [ 204 P. 46 ]); it is of little significance in the case of a resulting trust (Moultrie v. Wright, 154 Cal. 520, 526 [ 98 P. 257 ]) ; and “it is not designed to punish a plaintiff” but is “invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted i

2000(See, e.g., Barkley v. City of Blue Lake (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 309, 315 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 ] [“It is well settled that the equitable defense of laches does not apply in an action based on a judgment, which is an action at law”]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 439 [“. . . the laches defense is unavailable in an action at law for damages . . .”], citing Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 50 Cal.2d 438, 462 [ 326 P.2d 484 ]; Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ] [“The equitable doctrine of laches has a legal e

2000(See, e.g., Barkley v. City of Blue Lake (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 309, 315 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 ] [“It is well settled that the equitable defense of laches does not apply in an action based on a judgment, which is an action at law”]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 439 [“. . . the laches defense is unavailable in an action at law for damages . . .”], citing Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 50 Cal.2d 438, 462 [ 326 P.2d 484 ]; Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ] [“The equitable doctrine of laches has a legal e

1945Agency (1944), 321 U.S. 342 [ 64 S.Ct. 582 , 88 L.Ed. 788 ], it is stated: “Statutes of limitation, like the equitable doctrine of laches, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.

1945Agency (1944), 321 U.S. 342 [ 64 S.Ct. 582 , 88 L.Ed. 788 ], it is stated: “Statutes of limitation, like the equitable doctrine of laches, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.

2023(See, e.g., Straley v. Gamble (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 533, 537 ; Luxury Asset Lending, LLC v. Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 894 , 913 [noting that application of laches defense “is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court 29 and such discretion usually goes undisturbed by the appellate tribunal”]; Piscioneri v. City of Ontario (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1046 [in the absence of “ ‘palpable abuses of discretion,’ ” a trial court’s “ ‘finding of laches will not be disturbed on appeal’ ”].) Elsewhere, the standard of review applicable to a trial court’s decision

2007“The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” (Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351, 359 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 337 , 461 P.2d 617 ], fn. omitted.) “ ‘[L]aches is defined as an unreasonable delay in asserting an equitable right, causing prejudice to an adverse party such as to render the granting of relief to the other party inequitable. [Citation.] Thus, if a trial court finds (1) unreasonable delay; and (2) prejudice, and if its findings are n

1966It is there said, at pages 448-449 [ 182 P.2d 557 ] : “Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: ... ‘it is not designed to punish a plaintiff’ but is ‘invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice. ’ (Hiett v. Inland Finance Corp., 210 Cal. 293, 300 [ 291 P. 414 ].) To this latter point, the court said in Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620 , at page 625 [ 44 P. 1077 ] : ‘. . . it is never permitted to be invoked merely to aid a faithless trustee in consummating his wrong. ’ ’ ’ The defense of l

1966It is there said, at pages 448-449 [ 182 P.2d 557 ] : “Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: ... ‘it is not designed to punish a plaintiff’ but is ‘invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice. ’ (Hiett v. Inland Finance Corp., 210 Cal. 293, 300 [ 291 P. 414 ].) To this latter point, the court said in Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620 , at page 625 [ 44 P. 1077 ] : ‘. . . it is never permitted to be invoked merely to aid a faithless trustee in consummating his wrong. ’ ’ ’ The defense of l

2021Despite appellants’ claims otherwise, a laches defense was not available to them; thus, any waiver of such a defense could not have caused appellants’ asserted harm—i.e., loss of the property Although a laches defense might potentially be available under the Marketable Record Title Act in the context of a judicial foreclosure, we agree with the court in Nicolopulos, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 304, 312 , that it is at best unclear that the equitable defense of laches may be used in the context of a nonjudicial foreclosure. “ ‘Laches is an unreasonable delay in asserting an equitable right, causing

2000(See, e.g., Barkley v. City of Blue Lake (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 309, 315 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 ] [“It is well settled that the equitable defense of laches does not apply in an action based on a judgment, which is an action at law”]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 439 [“. . . the laches defense is unavailable in an action at law for damages . . .”], citing Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 50 Cal.2d 438, 462 [ 326 P.2d 484 ]; Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ] [“The equitable doctrine of laches has a legal e

1965Doctrine of Laches Defendant in his brief relies on Kleinclaus v. Dutard, 147 Cal. 245 [ 81 P. 516 ], for the rule that equitable actions may be barred by the doctrine of laches.

1965Doctrine of Laches Defendant in his brief relies on Kleinclaus v. Dutard, 147 Cal. 245 [ 81 P. 516 ], for the rule that equitable actions may be barred by the doctrine of laches.

1966It is there said, at pages 448-449 [ 182 P.2d 557 ] : “Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: ... ‘it is not designed to punish a plaintiff’ but is ‘invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice. ’ (Hiett v. Inland Finance Corp., 210 Cal. 293, 300 [ 291 P. 414 ].) To this latter point, the court said in Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620 , at page 625 [ 44 P. 1077 ] : ‘. . . it is never permitted to be invoked merely to aid a faithless trustee in consummating his wrong. ’ ’ ’ The defense of l

1962A clear statement of the principle here involved is found in Berniker v. Berniker, supra, 30 Cal.2d 439 , wherein the court said, at pages 448-449: “Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case suggest other grounds for the rejection of the doctrine of laches: It is not applied strictly between near relatives [citations]; it is of little significance in the case of a resulting trust [citation]; and ‘it is not designed to punish a plaintiff’ but is ‘invoked only where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice.’ [Citation.] To this latter point, the court said in Hovey v. Bradb

2025Laches “‘“The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” [Citation.]’ (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 68 .).” (Drake v. Pinkham (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 400, 406 .) The premise of Jeff’s laches defense is that the delay in rescinding the repayment agreement resulted in the loss of witnesses, including his father, and Sue May, who was very old by the time of trial.

2024(Cf. Drake, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 407 .) The determination that Norina did not meet her burden to prove unreasonable delay or acquiescence is well supported by the record.

2013Our holding applies to all claims. 5 Additionally, any action under section 1101 is subject to a laches defense. (§1101, subd. (d)(3).) “ 1 “The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” ’ ” (Bono v. Clark (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1418 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 ].) 6 As another commentator puts it, “While this might decrease the spouses’ present emotional happiness, it can increase their utility curve for wealth, as one spouse signals to the other that *573 personal f

2013Our holding applies to all claims. 5 Additionally, any action under section 1101 is subject to a laches defense. (§1101, subd. (d)(3).) “ 1 “The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” ’ ” (Bono v. Clark (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1418 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 ].) 6 As another commentator puts it, “While this might decrease the spouses’ present emotional happiness, it can increase their utility curve for wealth, as one spouse signals to the other that *573 personal f

2021(See, e.g., Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 (Highland Springs) [“[a]n action on a judgment is an action at law, and the defense of laches may not be raised in actions at law, including an action on a judgment”]; People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1088 [laches may be asserted only in a suit in equity]; United States Capital Corp. v. Nickelberry (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 864 , 867– 868 [the defense of laches may not be raised in actions at law, but only actions in equity]; Pratali v. Gates (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 632 , 644–645 [same

2000To allow a laches defense in a legal action would be to override a time limit mandated by the Legislature”]; and Pratali v. Gates (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 632, 645 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 733 ] [“The equitable defense of laches does not apply in an action at law”], but compare In re Marriage of Comer (1996) 14 Cal.4th 504, 514-515 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 155 , 927 P.2d 265 ] [court recognized application of equitable defense of estoppel in cases involving child support arrears, citing In re Marriage of Damico (1994) 7 Cal.4th 673 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 787 , 872 P.2d 126 ]].) Because child support is a legal right, th

2023(See, e.g., Straley v. Gamble (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 533, 537 ; Luxury Asset Lending, LLC v. Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 894 , 913 [noting that application of laches defense “is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court 29 and such discretion usually goes undisturbed by the appellate tribunal”]; Piscioneri v. City of Ontario (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1046 [in the absence of “ ‘palpable abuses of discretion,’ ” a trial court’s “ ‘finding of laches will not be disturbed on appeal’ ”].) Elsewhere, the standard of review applicable to a trial court’s decision

2021(Straley v. Gamble (201 3) 217 Cal.App.4th 533, 537, 539 .) We see no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its rejection of Poortinga’s assertion that laches should apply to bar Harper’s section 664.6 motion.