SPROWLES v. Thompson
239 P.3d 981, 2010 OK CIV APP 80 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute of repose, which extinguishes a substantive right to a cause of action after a specified time, cannot be applied retroactively. The law in effect at the time the acknowledgment of paternity was signed governs any subsequent challenge to it.
Facts:
- In 2004, Timothy Chad Thompson and Brittney Anne Sprowles were in a relationship.
- They briefly separated in January 2005, during which time Sprowles, unbeknownst to Thompson, had sexual relations with another man.
- Thompson and Sprowles reconciled, and in February 2005, Sprowles learned she was pregnant and represented to Thompson that he was the father.
- The child, TCT, was born on October 29, 2005.
- On October 30, 2005, Thompson, relying on Sprowles's representations, signed an Affidavit Acknowledging Paternity.
- After the child's birth, Thompson began to doubt his paternity as the child's skin tone became 'dark hued,' unlike his own or Sprowles's, both of whom are Caucasian.
- Sprowles later admitted to Thompson that she had been with another man and that the child could belong to that man.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 27, 2006, Sprowles filed a petition for paternity in the trial court.
- The trial court filed a temporary order on March 14, 2006, setting Thompson's child support obligation.
- On June 9, 2008, Thompson filed a motion in the same court to set aside the child support orders and his acknowledgment of paternity.
- The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a motion to dismiss Thompson's challenge, arguing it was time-barred.
- The trial court granted DHS's motion and dismissed Thompson's challenge.
- Thompson, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, with DHS 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 two-year time limit for challenging an acknowledgment of paternity under the Oklahoma Uniform Parentage Act, a statute of repose, apply retroactively to an acknowledgment signed before the Act's effective date?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodman, J.
No. The two-year time limit in the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) is a statute of repose affecting substantive rights and therefore cannot be applied retroactively. The court reasoned that the UPA's two-year limit for challenging paternity (§ 7700-308) is a statute of repose, not a statute of limitation, because it extinguishes the right to challenge paternity after two years regardless of when the fraud is discovered. While procedural statutes (like statutes of limitation) can be applied retroactively, substantive statutes (like statutes of repose) that affect vested rights cannot. Since Thompson signed the acknowledgment before the UPA was enacted, his challenge is governed by the pre-UPA law. The court further found that the trial court erred in applying a general two-year fraud statute of limitations under the pre-UPA law. Instead, the specific paternity statute in effect at the time (former § 70), which allowed a challenge for fraud at any time, should have controlled.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between a statute of limitation and a statute of repose, establishing that the latter affects substantive rights and cannot be applied retroactively. It protects individuals from having their legal rights extinguished by subsequent legislation, ensuring that the law in effect at the time of an action governs. The ruling also reinforces the principle of statutory construction that a specific statute prevails over a general one, preventing courts from applying a general fraud limitation period when a specific paternity statute exists. This precedent is significant for future cases involving challenges to paternity where the governing law has changed over time.
