Kylie B. Chitwood, Appellant v. Gordon G. Chitwood, Jr., Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment against the adult child’s claim for unpaid support because the same support obligation had already been litigated by her mother, who was the first party to pursue it, and the prior litigation barred later collection. The court held that a child-support arrearage is a singular obligation that may be pursued by different persons at different times, but not through successive actions for the same arrearage after the first action has been resolved. It also concluded that the undisputed evidence that the child’s needs were met made no difference because the claim was barred as a matter of law. Justice Baker, dissenting, would have held that the adult child’s action was distinct and remained viable because the mother’s estoppel did not extinguish the support debt.