Love v. Love
1998 Nev. LEXIS 61, 959 P.2d 523, 114 Nev. 572 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A final judgment of paternity established in a divorce decree is typically res judicata, but this preclusive effect does not apply if the judgment was procured through extrinsic fraud, such as a mother's fraudulent concealment of a child's true parentage.
Facts:
- Michael E. Love and Catherine L. Love married on September 17, 1981.
- A child was born seven months later, on April 24, 1982.
- The couple divorced on May 22, 1984, incorporating a settlement agreement in which Michael acknowledged paternity and agreed to pay child support and educational expenses.
- In December 1993, approximately nine years after the divorce, Michael obtained a DNA test which excluded him as the child's biological father.
- A second DNA test in August 1995 confirmed the results of the first test.
- In response to Michael's allegations, Catherine asserted that Michael was aware she had sexual intercourse with another man because Michael had participated.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 1995, Catherine filed a motion in district court to increase child support.
- Michael filed a separate complaint in the same court seeking to terminate his child support obligation, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation of paternity.
- The district court consolidated the two actions.
- Michael filed a motion for summary judgment to establish non-paternity, which the district court denied, ruling that the issue of paternity was res judicata.
- The district court subsequently entered an order directing Michael to pay increased child support, private school tuition, and Catherine's attorney fees.
- Michael (appellant) appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion and the subsequent support order to the Supreme Court of Nevada, with Catherine (respondent) as the appellee.
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 doctrine of res judicata bar a former husband from challenging a paternity determination established in a prior divorce decree when he alleges his ex-wife's fraudulent misrepresentation of parentage prevented him from litigating the issue at the time?
Opinions:
Majority - Shearing, J.
No. The doctrine of res judicata does not bar a challenge to a prior paternity determination if the judgment was procured by extrinsic fraud. While a paternity finding in a divorce decree is typically final under the principle of res judicata, an exception exists for extrinsic fraud, which occurs when a party's conduct prevents the other from having a fair opportunity to litigate an issue. Michael's allegation that Catherine fraudulently concealed the child’s parentage creates a genuine issue of material fact that must be determined by the trial court. If fraud is found, the district court must then weigh the conflicting presumptions of paternity under state law (NRS 126.051)—such as the presumption from marriage versus evidence from DNA tests—based on 'weightier considerations of policy and logic,' as biology is not the sole legal determinant of parental responsibility.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Springer, C. J.
No. While I agree with the majority that res judicata does not bar Michael from denying paternity due to the allegations of fraud, I dissent from the portion of the decision requiring him to continue paying child support and tuition while the case is pending.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that extrinsic fraud is a viable exception to the finality of paternity judgments in Nevada, highlighting a tension between the finality of judgments and the pursuit of truth, particularly with the advent of conclusive DNA testing. The court's secondary holding is also significant: it clarifies that even if fraud is proven and res judicata is overcome, paternity is not automatically disestablished. Instead, it empowers trial courts to weigh non-biological factors and public policy against biological evidence, creating a two-step process that prioritizes judicial discretion in determining parental responsibility.
