Miller v. Miller
1998 OK 24, 956 P.2d 887 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that establishes an irrebuttable presumption of paternity for a child born and raised within a marriage does not bar a separate common law tort action for damages based on fraudulent misrepresentation of paternity and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- In early 1980, Jimmy D. Miller, aged 17, and Judy A. Hall, aged 15, were dating.
- In March 1980, Judy and her parents, Bill and Nora Hall, informed Jimmy that Judy was pregnant with his child, asserting he was the only possible father.
- Relying on these representations, Jimmy married Judy on October 24, 1980.
- The child, A, was born on December 29, 1980, and Jimmy raised her as his own daughter, believing he was her biological father.
- Jimmy and Judy divorced in 1985, after which Jimmy paid court-ordered child support and maintained a continuous parent-child relationship with A.
- In January 1996, Judy and her parents revealed to the 15-year-old child, A, that Jimmy was not her biological father and introduced her to her 'real father.'
- A then conveyed this information to Jimmy, which was his first notice of the deception.
- A paternity test conducted that same month confirmed that Jimmy was not A's biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy D. Miller (plaintiff) sued his ex-wife, Judy Childers, and her parents, Bill and Nora Hall (defendants), in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- Jimmy D. Miller (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the case.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals.
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 a state statute that creates an irrebuttable presumption of a husband's paternity of a child born during the marriage bar a subsequent tort action by the husband against his ex-wife for damages based on fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from her misrepresentation of his paternity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Opala
No. A statute creating an irrebuttable presumption of paternity does not bar a common law tort action for damages arising from a fraudulent misrepresentation of that paternity. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's lawsuit is not a paternity action seeking to disestablish his legal status as the child's father or to terminate his parental obligations. Instead, it is a tort action seeking damages for the distinct harms of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff's biological non-paternity is merely an element of proof for the torts, not an attack on his legal parental status. Neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion from the prior divorce decree bars the action, as a tort claim is fundamentally different from a divorce proceeding, and the plaintiff never had a 'full and fair opportunity' to litigate biological paternity due to the defendants' concealment and fraud. The court found that the defendants' alleged 15-year deception, culminating in a cruel revelation to the child and undermining of the father-child bond, could reasonably be regarded as 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Furthermore, a false representation that a prospective spouse is the father of an existing pregnancy goes to the 'essentials of the marital relationship' and can therefore support a claim for fraudulent inducement to marry.
Dissenting - Justice Simms
Yes. The plaintiff's action should be barred. The dissent argued that the lawsuit is a 'poorly disguised effort' by the plaintiff to indirectly challenge his paternity, which is something the state paternity statute directly prohibits. Since the plaintiff's paternity of the child is 'irrebuttable and conclusive' under the statute, the trial court's dismissal of all claims was correct and should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a critical distinction between a legal action to determine or undo parental status and a tort action seeking damages for harm caused by deception about that status. It establishes that family law statutes designed to protect the stability and legitimacy of children cannot be used as a shield by a tortfeasor to escape liability for intentional torts like fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. By allowing the tort claims to proceed, the court provides a remedy for the deceived individual without disrupting the established legal parent-child relationship, thus balancing the interests of the wronged party against the public policy of protecting the child's welfare.
Unlock the full brief for Miller v. Miller