Dier v. Peters
Filed June 1, 2012 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who provides voluntary financial support in reliance on a mother's fraudulent misrepresentation that he is the child's biological father has a recognized cause of action for common law fraud to recover those expenditures.
Facts:
- Cassandra Jo Peters gave birth to a child, O.D., on February 10, 2009.
- Peters knew that Joseph O. Dier was not the child's biological father.
- Despite this knowledge, Peters told Dier that he was the child's biological father.
- Based on Peters' representation, Dier provided voluntary financial support for both Peters and the child.
- After Dier initiated legal proceedings to establish custody, Peters requested a paternity test.
- Two separate paternity tests were conducted, both of which excluded Dier as the biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph O. Dier filed an application in an Iowa district court to establish custody of the minor child, O.D.
- On August 2, 2011, Dier filed a separate petition at law in the district court against Cassandra Jo Peters, seeking reimbursement for monies expended on her and the child.
- Peters filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that Iowa does not recognize an action for 'paternity fraud'.
- The district court granted Peters' motion and dismissed Dier's action.
- Dier appealed the district court's dismissal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Iowa law recognize a cause of action for common law fraud, known as 'paternity fraud,' allowing a putative father to seek reimbursement from the mother for voluntary financial support provided in reliance on her fraudulent misrepresentation that he was the biological father?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield, J.
Yes. Iowa law recognizes a cause of action for paternity fraud because such a claim fits within the traditional elements of common law fraud and is not barred by statute or public policy. The court reasoned that Dier's allegations satisfied all elements of a traditional fraud claim: a false material representation made with knowledge of its falsity and intent to deceive, upon which Dier justifiably relied, causing him to suffer damages. The court rejected public policy arguments that the suit would harm the child, stating that parents are not immune from tort liability simply because a judgment might reduce funds available for a child. Furthermore, the court distinguished this case from those involving court-ordered child support, where the principle of finality of judgments applies; here, the payments were voluntary, so that principle is not implicated. The court found no legislative intent to bar such a claim, as the relevant statutes only address the consequences of court-ordered support, not voluntary payments induced by fraud.
Concurring - Cady, C.J.
Yes, the claim should be allowed to proceed, but it faces significant inherent difficulties. The Chief Justice wrote separately to emphasize that while the courthouse doors must remain open for recognized torts like fraud, proving paternity fraud will be exceptionally challenging. The complexity of intimate relationships means motivations can be multifaceted, and a plaintiff will face a high burden in proving the mother's state of mind (scienter) and that his reliance was justifiable. The legal process will likely require intrusive and potentially embarrassing discovery into both parties' lives. However, these difficulties do not justify creating a judicial exception to a common law cause of action; balancing such competing policy interests is a task for the legislature, not the court.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes paternity fraud as a cognizable tort in Iowa, aligning the state with jurisdictions that prioritize providing a remedy for fraud over policy concerns about disrupting family relationships. The ruling creates a critical distinction between recovering court-ordered support (generally barred) and recovering voluntary payments induced by fraud (now permissible). This precedent provides a clear legal avenue for individuals deceived about paternity to seek financial recourse, though the court underscores the high evidentiary bar for proving such claims. Future cases will likely grapple with the practical difficulties of establishing scienter and justifiable reliance in these emotionally complex situations.
Unlock the full brief for Dier v. Peters