'Foreign' to Diné way of life

Ruby and Eddie Paul Watson got married in 1964, separated in 1988, and divorced in 2001.

Since the split, Eddie Watson has accumulated a debt of almost $500,000 in unpaid child support and alimony, an amount so great that no one expected he would pay it off during his lifetime. So his ex tried to force him to take out a life insurance policy to pay off the debt in case he died.

But the Navajo Nation Supreme Court stepped in and gave Eddie Watson an early Christmas gift, ruling Dec. 14 that Watson does not have to pay back alimony and child support or take out a life insurance policy to cover the debt.

That, the court said, would be "foreign to our Diné way of life."

At the same time, the ruling contained a warning to Navajo parents who may be reluctant to hold a deadbeat partner to account - you have a duty to yourself and your children not to let your ex slide when it comes to paying child support and alimony, the high court said.

The Watson case has been winding through the Navajo Nation court system since the couple was granted a legal separation in October 1988. It's been around so long the high court ruled that instead of sending it back to the Tuba City District Court, the Supreme Court would make the final disposition.

Nonpayment revealed

The Watsons were a family of 14, with four kids from their marriage and eight others from a prior relationship of Ruby's.

When the couple parted, Eddie Watson was required under the legal separation agreement to pay $500 a month in child support - for the couple's two children who were still under 18 at the time - and $800 a month in alimony. But court records show that he paid neither amount for 13 years, nor was there any court proceeding during that time to enforce the obligations.

It wasn't until Ruby Watson filed for divorce in 2001 that the nonpayment came to light. When the divorce was granted in 2003, the Tuba City District Court awarded Ruby Watson the money owed her for those 13 years.

The court turned down a request from Ruby to require her former husband to take out a life insurance policy to any amount he might still owe when he died. The lower court also reduced the alimony from $800 to $200 a month.

In 2005, the Supreme Court took up the matter for the first time and ruled that not only would Eddie Watson have to pay back alimony and child support, he'd have to pay 10 percent compound interest on the debt. The Supreme Court also invalidated the district court's decision to apply half of Eddie Watson's stake in his house as partial payment of the debt.

The matter went back to the Tuba City Family Court, which issued an order in May 2007 again denying Ruby's request to make Eddie Watson buy life insurance. The court required him to pay his ex-wife $800 a month, $200 for current alimony and $600 in back child support and alimony payments.

At that point, Eddie Watson owed his ex-wife $52,747 in unpaid child support and $412,216 in unpaid alimony, according to court records, and he began paying the $800 a month.

The Supreme Court decision issued last month resolves all of these issues.

On the unpaid child support and alimony, the court pointed out that the tribe's Child Support Enforcement Act, passed in 1994, is silent on the question of what happens to court-ordered payments that are not made. In subsequent court cases, judges imposed interest as an incentive for the non-custodial parent to pay on time.

Since there was no tribal law on the issue, the court said it would adopt Arizona standards, which gave the parent getting the payments a vested right to the money.

This Supreme Court reversed the 2005 decisions by the district court and high court to levy 10 percent interest on the past-due payments, saying that only the legislature has the right to impose a single default rate for all cases. Instead, the rate of such interest will be determined on a case-by-case basis, the court ruled.

Waited 13 years

The justices also questioned Ruby Watson's long delay in making an issue of her ex-husband's non-payment.

"What is particularly troubling to the Court is that (Ruby Watson) is asking for enforcement of a judgment rendered more than 21 years ago," the latest Supreme Court ruling stated, adding that she waited - for reasons never explained to the court - more than 13 years to get the court to enforce the judgment.

The Supreme Court ruled that both parties had a responsibility - one to pay the amount awarded and the other to take steps to ensure the court order was followed.

If enough time passes, the high court said, delays in getting the order enforced would be considered negligence and "the asserted right will not be enforced by the courts."

Which is what happened in this case.

Since Eddie Watson won't be required to make up the missed payments, the question of requiring him to take out life insurance was moot. The Supreme Court decided to address the issue anyway, however, because it may come up again in future cases.

'Bilagáana way'

"The request to secure a life insurance policy is a bilagáana way of making arrangement for payment of indebtedness," the court stated, and is "foreign to our Diné way of life."

Since both Watsons are now elderly, the court assumed that they were raised traditionally and the justices were sympathetic to Eddie Watson's revulsion at the notion of being forced to take out life insurance to pay a debt.

"To demand such a remedy in the Diné perspective is Diné biz nidizin, the notion of wishing ill will or early death on an individual," the ruling stated. "It is quite different if a person voluntarily obtains a life insurance policy, which is then deemed to be a personal choice of the individual."

The Supreme Court also affirmed the district court's decision to reduce alimony from $800 to $200 a month.

Back to top ^