Hodge v. Craig

Supreme Court of Tennessee
Filed October 1, 2012 (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A former spouse may bring a common-law claim for intentional misrepresentation against the other spouse for falsely representing a child's paternity. A damage award in such a tort action, calculated based on the amount of past child support paid, does not constitute a prohibited retroactive modification of the original child support order.

Facts:

Chadwick Craig and Tina Marie Hodge began dating in high school.
In early October 1991, Hodge broke up with Craig for several weeks, during which time she had sexual relations with another man, Joey Hay.
Hodge later reunited with Craig but did not disclose her sexual relations with Hay; she was intimate with both men during the period the child was conceived.
In November 1991, Hodge informed Craig she was pregnant and, when asked, explicitly assured him that he was the child's father and that no one else could be.
Relying on this assurance, Craig married Hodge in December 1991, and their son, Kyle, was born in June 1992.
Craig raised Kyle as his biological son, adopted Hodge's other daughter, and underwent a vasectomy.
In 2007, long after the couple had divorced, Craig's suspicions led him to obtain a DNA test, which confirmed he was not Kyle's biological father.

Procedural Posture:

Chadwick Craig filed a 'counter-petition' against Tina Marie Hodge in the Chancery Court for Maury County (a trial court), alleging intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation of paternity.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found for Craig and awarded him $134,877.90 in damages, including reimbursement for child support paid.
Hodge, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of intentional misrepresentation but reversed all damage awards, concluding the child support reimbursement was a prohibited retroactive modification of a support order.
Craig, as appellant, filed an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest 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 Tennessee common law permit a claim for intentional misrepresentation against a person who falsely represents the paternity of a child, and is a damage award based on past child support payments a prohibited retroactive modification of a support order?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Koch

Yes, a claim for intentional misrepresentation is permitted, and no, the damage award is not a prohibited retroactive modification. Tennessee's existing common-law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses a claim against a child's mother for misrepresenting the child's paternity. The court found that public policy does not bar such claims, as they go to the essence of the marital relationship and are consistent with the evolution of common law in domestic matters. All six elements of intentional misrepresentation were proven: Hodge made a false, material representation recklessly, upon which Craig justifiably relied to his financial detriment. The court, however, declined to extend the tort of negligent misrepresentation to this context, as it is limited to business or commercial transactions. Furthermore, the damage award based on past child support payments is not a retroactive modification of a support order under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(1) because that statute was designed to prevent the forgiveness of child support arrearages, which were not at issue here. The award is a measure of pecuniary loss in a separate tort action, not a change to the support obligation itself.

Analysis:

This decision formally establishes that 'paternity fraud' is an actionable tort in Tennessee under the established legal theory of intentional misrepresentation. It draws a clear line between family law proceedings and tort law, clarifying that statutes prohibiting retroactive modification of child support do not bar a separate tort claim for damages caused by deception. The ruling provides a remedy for individuals who suffer financial harm due to deceit about parentage, but by limiting the cause of action to intentional (not negligent) conduct, it avoids opening the floodgates to litigation in cases of genuine mistake or uncertainty. This case sets a significant precedent for the intersection of tort and family law, especially in an era where DNA testing can definitively resolve paternity questions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hodge v. Craig (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"