WPC# # t U: % 0 w@ 4  # 0J+ 0Tu 0^ 0h' 0r 0| 0} 0 1u 0dU*lB)DCU> B@ AM]cQv~v2 D3 0@8 AOx 0D D/ B! 0?! 0D\#HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLD,cAZ"Arial RegularX(~$  HTR[A' LegalLh (Avery 4167 Post CardA' Legalh (Avery 4167 Post CardTXmXXX73XXdXXd7 E[[@e DӀڃ"3|xH2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd<  9p`(&Times New Roman d-"C << G  !  #d#     H \RA'\#d#      YYY FILED X October30,1997CecilCrowson,Jr. AppellateCourtClerk  Y !#d#     H \RA'\#d#  $       ##ԀBagwellv.McTighe,85Tenn.616,4S.W.46(Tenn.1887);Kempev.Bader,86Tenn.189,6S.W.126(Tenn.1887);Hubblev.MorristownLand&Imp.Co.,95Tenn.585,32S.W.965(Tenn.1895)  X.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva $$$$'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd((3-$ ~!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXzXXX7zXXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   ! .      H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#  ݛ ##R%&"A1-j|` . `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE       ) BLEDSOECHANCERY      )INRE:ESTATEOF   ) NO.03A019707CH00252      )JAMESC.MEADER,DECEASED ) HON.G.RICHARDJOHNSON      ) CHANCELLOR      )      )      ) AFFIRMED @ # OPINION#       INMAN,SeniorJudge @ I  Thedecedent,JamesC.Meader,diedtestateinBledsoeCounty,TennesseeonMay23,1995.Hiswillwasdulypropoundedforprobateandletterstestamentarywereissuedtohiswidow,VirginiaMeader. In1966,thedecedentandhisfirstwifeweredivorcedinMilwaukeeCounty,Wisconsin.Custodyoffive(5)childrenwasawardedtotheirmother;thedecedentwasorderedtopay$45.00perweekchildsupport. Hepaidnothing.InWisconsintheageofmajorityis19,andthechildrenattainedmajorityin1970,1971,1972,1974and1977,respectively.Thedecedenthavingdefaultedinhisnaturalandlegalobligationtosupporthischildren,theStateofWisconsinandtheCountyofMilwaukeesteppedinandprovidedpartialsupportforthechildrenuntileachattainedmajority.TheStateofWisconsinfiledaclaimagainsttheestateofthedecedenttorecover$47,728.86paidtothemotherintheformofaidtodependentchildren;themother,JoyceBunnell,oneoftheappellants,filedaclaimfor$32,590.04forsupportarrearages,andtheCountyofMilwaukeefiledamodestclaimfor$320.00torecovercertainfees. Toeachoftheseclaimstheexecutrixfiledexceptions,pleadingthestatuteoflimitationsoften(10)years[T.C.A.283110(2)].Thetrialcourtsustainedtheexceptions,holdingthattheclaimswerebarredbytheaffirmativedefenseofthestatuteoflimitationsoftenyears. @ II  Sofarasweknow,allcivilactionsinthisjurisdictionaresubjecttoastatuteoflimitations.T.C.A.283110providesthatactionsorjudgmentsanddecreesofcourtsofrecordofthisoranyotherstateorgovernmentshallbecommencedwithinten(10)yearsafterthecauseofactionhasaccrued. Inthelightmostfavorabletotheappellants,theiractionsaccruedin1977whenthelegaldutyofthefathertoprovidesupportforhischildrenended.Ifthestatuteoflimitationsoften(10)yearsisapplicable,itisconcededthattheclaimsarebarred,sincetheywerefiledin1996. T.C.A.365613(c)provides:  8 (c)8 TheCourtshallapplythestatuteoflimitationsformaintaininganactiononarrearagesofsupportpaymentsofeitherthelocallawofthisStateoroftheStatewhichissuedthesupportorder...whicheverislonger.   TheWisconsinstatuteoflimitationsisnotrevealedintherecord,requiringthepresumptionthatitisidenticaltotheTennesseestatute, '   כwhich,asstated,providesthatactionsonjudgmentsanddecreesofcourtsofrecordofthisoranyotherStateorgovernmentshallbecommencedwithinten(10)yearsafterthecauseofactionaccrued. ThisCourthasruledinanumberofcasesthatthestatuteoflimitationsdoesnotapplyinactionstoenforcejudgmentswhereinthedefaultingparentsoughttoavoidpaymentofonlythatportionofthejudgmentwhichaccruedmorethantenyearsbeforetheactionwasbrought,e.g.,Sandidgev.Brown,No.03A019104CV00142(Tenn.App.1991),andcasesthereincited.Therationaleofthesecasesisthattheobligationofsupportforminorchildrenisacontinuingoneandthattherightofthechildtobesupportedcannotbedefeatedbythederelictionofthecustodialparentinenforcingadecreeofsupport. ButtheobligationofsupportinWisconsinterminateswhenthechildreaches19,theageofmajority,subjecttoexceptionsnothererelevant,or,inthelanguageofthecases,theobligationthenceasestobeacontinuingone,andthedelimitingperiodoften(10)yearsbeginstorun. Thearrearageswerenotreducedtojudgment.Forthisreason,accordingtotheappellants,thestatuteoflimitationsisnotapplicable,sincenojudgmentwasenteredtotriggeritscommencement. In1987theTennesseeLegislatureamendedT.C.A.365101toprovidethat anyorderforchildsupportshallbeajudgmenttobeenforcedasanyotherjudgment....Thisamendmentguaranteedtheenforceabilityofchildsupportpayments.See,generally,42U.S.C.666;Rutledgev.Barrett,802S.W.2d604(Tenn.1991).Italsoeliminatedanyequitabledefenseoflaches,waiverorestoppel.Rutledgedidnotaddresstheissueofthestatuteoflimitations. Wethinkthat,absentaclearlegislativemandate,childsupportjudgmentsaresubjecttothedefenseofthestatuteoflimitationsasis anyotherjudgment.Wearenotintheleastreluctanttoexpresstheviewthat,inthefieldofcivillaw,childsupportpaymentsandjudgmentsrenderedthereforshouldneverbebarredbyadelimitingstatute.Thisparentalobligationisbothnaturalandlegalandshouldremainenforceableagainsttheestateoftheobligor.Butgiventhecurrentstatusoftheapplicablestatutoryanddecisionallaw,[Judgments(forchildsupport)aresubjecttothedefensesapplicabletojudgmentsgenerally,Bloomv.Bloom769S.W.2d491(Tenn.App.1988)],weholdthatinthecaseatBartheplaintiffscausesofactionarosemorethantenyearsbeforetheircauseswerefiled.Wearethusinagreementwiththetrialcourt,andthejudgmentisaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellant.      _________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:________________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge________________________________HerschelP.Franks,Judge %  ̜