Hill v. Blevins
2005 OK 11, 109 P.3d 332 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations for vacating a judgment or legal order, such as a paternity affidavit, on the grounds of fraud begins to run when the means of discovering the fraud become available through public records, not when the complaining party obtains actual knowledge of the fraud.
Facts:
- Howard Lee Hill, Jr. and Heather Diane Blevins lived together and agreed to conceive a child in December 1996.
- Around December 25, 1996, Blevins confirmed her pregnancy with a home test and told friends and family that Hill was the father.
- In June 1997, when Blevins was approximately six months pregnant, she ended her relationship with Hill.
- On September 23, 1997, Blevins gave birth to a child, D.S., while Hill was incarcerated.
- After the child's birth, Blevins and another man, David A. Sawyer, signed an affidavit acknowledging Sawyer as the father of D.S., which was filed with the state.
- Hill made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Blevins concerning the child after the birth.
- In June 2002, Hill learned from the Department of Human Services that paternity for D.S. had already been legally established for another man.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Lee Hill, Jr. filed two petitions in the District Court of Kay County: one to establish his paternity of D.S. and another to vacate the paternity affidavit naming David A. Sawyer as the father.
- The trial court consolidated the two cases.
- The appellees, Heather Diane Blevins and D.S., filed motions to dismiss.
- The District Court granted the motions, dismissing Hill's claims as barred by the statute of limitations.
- Hill, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.
- The appellees petitioned the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the two-year statute of limitations for vacating a paternity affidavit on grounds of fraud begin to run when the means of discovering the alleged fraud, such as a public birth certificate, become available, even if the party claiming paternity has no actual knowledge of the affidavit?
Opinions:
Majority - Winchester, J.
Yes. The two-year statute of limitations to vacate a paternity order for fraud begins to run when the party challenging it has constructive notice of the alleged fraud. Hill had knowledge of the pregnancy and the approximate due date, which gave him the means to discover the alleged fraud by inquiring about the child's birth and checking public records, such as the birth certificate, which was issued on October 17, 1997. Constructive notice from public records is sufficient to start the limitations period. Since the means of discovery were available to Hill in 1997, the two-year statute of limitations expired in October 1999, rendering his 2003 lawsuit time-barred.
Dissenting - Opala, J.
This opinion was a dissent without a written explanation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of constructive notice in the context of fraud-based challenges to legal judgments, specifically paternity acknowledgments. It places an affirmative duty on a potential biological father to be diligent in protecting his parental rights by promptly investigating public records following a child's birth. The ruling prioritizes the finality of legal paternity and the stability of the child's legal status over a biological claim that is not timely asserted. Consequently, it makes it more difficult for a party to toll the statute of limitations by claiming ignorance of a fraud when the information was publicly accessible.
