State Dept. of Rev. v. Wilson ( 1981 )


Menu:
  •                             No. 80-369
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1981
    STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
    DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL REHABILITIVE SERVICES,
    et al.,
    Petitioners and Appellants,
    vs .
    ALFRED J. WILSON,
    Respondent and Respondent.
    No. 80-423
    STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
    DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION
    SERVICES, et al.,
    Petitioners and Appellants,
    VS   .
    ROBERT JAMES FATZ,
    Respondent and Respondent.
    Appeal from:       District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
    In and for the County of Cascade.
    Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding.
    Counsel of Record:
    For Appellants:
    Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
    J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
    James, Gray & McCafferty, Great Falls, Montana
    Fausto Turrin argued, Great Falls, Montana
    Asselstine & Cruikshank, Great Falls, Montana
    Brett C. Asselstine argued, Great Falls, Montana
    Submitted:   June 10, 1981
    Decided:    August 11-, 1981
    Filed:   AU6 1 1 19W
    Clerk
    H o n o r a b l e Mark P . S u l l i v a n ,         District        Judge,       delivered       the
    Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
    T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from j u d g m e n t s g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t s
    by    the    District         Court of           the Eighth J u d i c i a l            District     in
    p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t them by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f
    Revenue       and     the         Department         of     Social       and     Rehabilitation
    S e r v i c e s (SRS)   .
    R e s p o n d e n t s had moved          for     judgments         contending        that
    the     statute         of         limitations             on     the    determination             of
    paternity,          section          40-6-108,         MCA,        had     run     at    the     time
    appellants          filed      the petitions.                   I n g r a n t i n g t h e motions,
    the    District         Court        dismissed         the       petitions        filed     by    the
    State.         Appellants             allege        the    statute       of      limitations        is
    u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s h o u l d be s t r u c k down.
    A m a l e c h i l d was b o r n o u t o f              wedlock t o E.F.L.R.            on
    March 2 2 , 1 9 7 6 .         A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e ,        t h e mother
    applied        to    the      state        for      public        assistance,            including
    support for          the child,            and g a v e SRS s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n
    which would be enough t o s t a r t a p a t e r n i t y                          action against
    A l f r e d J . W i l s o n 11.         The S t a t e a l s o o b t a i n e d an a s s i g n m e n t
    of    the mother's           claim for           s u p p o r t from t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r
    when t h e baby was b o r n .                  The S t a t e b r o u g h t       action against
    Wilson      on May          22,     1979,      more       than     three      years     after     the
    b i r t h of t h e c h i l d .        The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n
    on m o t i o n o f t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r .
    On A u g u s t 11, 1 9 7 2 , M.L.             g a v e b i r t h t o a male c h i l d .
    Sometime t h e r e a f t e r         t h e S t a t e of         Montana became a n             inter-
    ested       party     because           the     mother          assigned         her    rights      to
    support       t o SRS.            On A u g u s t 4 ,      1980, e i g h t y e a r s a f t e r     the
    child's       birth,        SRS      filed      a   petition         against       Robert      James
    F a t z t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y and o b t a i n s u p p o r t moneys.
    Thereafter,               on August          27,    1980,     counsel          for    Robert
    James F a t z f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e
    r e q u i r i n g b l o o d t e s t s and a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n .
    On     September         5,        1980,     oral       arguments        were       heard       by    the
    Honorable J o e l G.               Roth and on S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e c o u r t
    g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s .
    The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t is w h e t h e r t h e t h r e e - y e a r
    statute       of       limitations            on     the      determination          of    paternity
    i n s e c t i o n 40-6-108(3),               MCA,       violates        the equal protection
    p r o v i s i o n of    t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment o f              t h e United S t a t e s
    Constitution            and        Article          11,    Section       4     of    the        Montana
    Constitution.
    An e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e .
    A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t c h i l d r e n born o u t of wedlock,                           as a
    c l a s s , a r e t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from c h i l d r e n born i n wedlock
    because       the       first         class        loses      rights     during       infancy         for
    determination                 of      paternity            and        child     support.               In
    p a r t i c u l a r , t h e c h i l d b o r n o u t o f wedlock may n o t m a i n t a i n a
    support action against the paternal parent a f t e r three years
    from t h e d a t e o f             b i r t h of     the child.          S e c t i o n 40-6-108(3),
    MCA.       C h i l d r e n born         i n wedlock,           whose     paternal          parent      is
    p r e s u m e d , do n o t f a c e a s t a t u t e t h a t b a r s s u c h a c t i o n s .
    C h i l d r e n b o r n o u t o f wedlock a r e n o t t h e s o l e p a r t i e s
    t h a t concern t h i s Court.                    W e a l s o m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e power o f
    the     State          through          its        agencies        to     bring       actions          of
    p a t e r n i t y under s e c t i o n 40-6-107,                MCA.    S t a t e agencies derive
    their      power        to     bring        paternity          actions        by     way    of       this
    statute.
    The Montana                Constitution            provides        that    all       persons
    a r e g u a r a n t e e d t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of         t h e laws.        Art.      11,
    Sec. 4, 197
    2 Mont. C
    onst.
    Children Born Out Of Wedlock
    As to children born out of wedlock, we find that
    section 40-6-108,     MCA, does create an unfair burden and
    unfairly discriminates against these children.      The statute
    of limitations, as applied, is unconstitutional with respect
    to children born out of wedlock.     The statute prevents any
    guardian, guardian ad litem or next friend of the child from
    maintaining an action for support from the paternal parent
    three years after birth of the child.
    Classifications of this nature are invalid under the
    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, if
    they are not substantially related to a permissible state
    interest.     Mathews v. Lucas (1976), 
    427 U.S. 495
    , 
    96 S. Ct. 2755
    , 
    49 L. Ed. 2d 651
    .   The limitations statute constitutes
    an overly-broad restriction on the rights of children born
    out of wedlock.
    The Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed this
    same issue recently in County of Lenoir ex rel. Cogdell v.
    Johnson     (1980), 46 N.C.App.   182, 
    264 S.E.2d 816
    .   The
    court's statement has application here:
    "In the case sub judice, defendant argues
    that [the statute] bears a substantial
    relationship to the State's interest in
    preventing the litigation of stale or
    fraudulent claims.     We disagree.    As we
    stated previously, a child is entitled to
    support from its father throughout its
    minority.   Therefore, a child's claim for
    such support at any time during its minority
    can never be said to be stale. Nor is [the
    statute] substantially related to the State's
    interest in preventing the litigation of
    fraudulent claims.    We have no reason to
    believe that the mere passage of time bears a
    direct relation to the truth of the claim
    asserted. Moreover, the need of a child to
    r e c e i v e adequate support m a n i f e s t l y outweighs
    t h e r e l a t i o n t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s may
    have t o t h e p r e v e n t i o n of f r a u d u l e n t c l a i m s .
    . . .       " 264 S.E.2d a t 8 2 1 .
    The       rights     of      the    child      cannot        be    so    compromised
    during its infancy.                  The c h i l d b o r n o u t o f wedlock c a n n o t be
    b a r r e d a c c e s s t o our c o u r t s d u r i n g i n f a n c y .        Art.     11, S e c .
    1 3 , 1 9 7 
    2 Mont. C
     o n s t .
    Recently,          we     examined         the      scientific          advances         in
    b l o o d t e s t i n g i n d e t e r m i n i n g p a t e r n i t y and t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y
    power of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .           Rose v . D i s t .      Court of Eighth
    Judicial        Dist.       (1981),         - Mont.                 ,      
    628 P.2d 662
    ,     38
    St.Rep.       830.        The      newly-developed,             greater        percentage          of
    accuracy in determining p a t e r n i t y allows greater protections
    f o r t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r from f r a u d u l e n t c l a i m s .        I n l i g h t of
    t h e s e advances,         t h e s t a n d a r d of proof r e q u i r e d i n p a t e r n i t y
    a c t i o n s and t h e d i s c r e t i o n g r a n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n
    pretrial        hearings,          it    is     concluded         that       the     purpose       of
    s e c t i o n 40-6-108(3),           MCA,     a s applied t o t h e child through a
    guardian        ad    litem or          other     representative,              is minimal          or
    nonexistent            compared         to     the     interest         of     the      child      in
    o b t a i n i n g s u p p o r t from h i s p a t e r n a l p a r e n t .
    S t a t e Aqencies
    T h i s C o u r t d o e s uphold t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a s
    a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e where a s t a t e a g e n c y , s u c h a s t h e D e p a r t -
    ment o f Revenue o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a -
    t i o n S e r v i c e s , d e r i v e s a r i g h t from t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d
    b o r n o u t o f wedlock t o b r i n g a c l a i m f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r
    child      support       through p a t e r n i t y        actions.           The i n t e r e s t o f
    t h e S t a t e i n t h e s e m a t t e r s i s e c o n o m i c , and t h e power o f t h e
    State      to     continually           threaten         its    citizens           in   paternity
    actions            must     always      be    thoroughly            examined          and    not        taken
    1i g h t l y   .
    The S t a t e is n o t a c h i l d .                 In r e a l i t y ,      it cares not
    s o much a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f a t h e r and c h i l d b u t more
    a b o u t economic r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r w e l f a r e and o t h e r d e p e n d e n t
    aid.       The r i g h t s g i v e n t o t h e S t a t e a r e n o t e q u a l                     to the
    rights         and         interests         of    the        child       or     the      reasons         or
    necessity            for     finding the child's                    father.         The s t a t u t e o f
    limitations,               therefore,         provides          a    protection           against         the
    inadvertence                 and      delay       of      the       State        in     actions          for
    paternity.                The p a t e r n a l p a r e n t p r o t e c t i o n       offered        by     the
    s t a t u t e a s against the S t a t e has a s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n t o
    t h e intended purpose and, t h e r e f o r e ,                      is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
    W note t h a t the t o l l i n g s t a t u t e ,
    e                                                                  s e c t i o n 25-1-102,
    MCA, by i t s t e r m s , h a s n o t been made a p p l i c a b l e t o Uniform
    Parentage            Act      cases.         The       matter        of    providing           a    proper
    tolling            statute       for     minors,         at     least,         is     called       to     the
    a t t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r f u t u r e a c t i o n .
    The j u d g m e n t s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s t o t h e s t a t e
    agencies are affirmed.
    D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n
    p l a c e o f Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C .
    Harr i s o n
    W concur:
    e
    Justices
    Mr.   Chief J u s t i c e Haswell, d i s s e n t i n g :
    I would r e v e r s e .
    I a g r e e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e of      l i m i t a t i o n s is u n c o n s t i t u -
    t i o n a l as t o a n i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d by t h e
    majority.         I n my v i e w i t i s e q u a l l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a g a i n s t t h e
    S t a t e whose claims a r e d e r i v e d t h r o u g h and e q u a l to t h o s e of t h e
    i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d t o whom it h a s f u r n i s h e d s u p p o r t .
    The s t a t u t e s o f t h i s S t a t e p r o v i d e :
    "40-5-109.             Remedies o f s t a t e - p o l i t i c a l -
    or               sub-
    d i v i s i o n furnishing support.                   If a state o r a
    p o l i t i c a l subdivision furnishes support t o an
    i n d i v i d u a l o b l i g e e , it h a s t h e same r i g h t to
    i n i t i a t e a proceeding under t h i s p a r t as t h e
    i n d i v i d u a l o b l i g e e f o r t h e purpose of s e c u r i n g
    r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r s u p p o r t f u r n i s h e d and of
    obtaining continuing support                     ."
    Here t h e S t a t e t o o k a n a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e
    c h i l d ' s claim a g a i n s t h i s a l l e g e d f a t h e r .       T h i s Court s t a t e d
    a l m o s t 50 y e a r s a g o :
    "   ...     The r u l e i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t a n a s s i g n -
    ment t r a n s f e r s t o t h e a s s i g n e e a l l t h e r i g h t ,
    t i t l e and i n t e r e s t o f t h e a s s i g n o r i n t h e p r o -
    p e r t y assigned
    782.
    . . ."    9 
    1 Mont. 493
    , 506, 11 P.2d
    The same p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s t o s u b r o g a t i o n which i s s i m p l y
    a d e v i c e o f e q u i t y t o compel u l t i m a t e payment o f a d e b t by o n e
    who i n j u s t i c e and good c o n s c i e n c e s h o u l d pay i t .
    S k a u g e v. M o u n t a i n S t a t e s T e l .   &   T e l . Co.    (1977),                 Mont    .    I
    5 6 
    5 P.2d 628
    , 34 St.Rep.            450.       A c c o r d i n g l y , a l l t h e r i g h t s and
    r e m e d i e s o f t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e S t a t e .
    W h e r e , as h e r e , t h e r i g h t s of t h e S t a t e and t h e i l l e g i t i -
    m a t e c h i l d a r e i d e n t i c a l , how c a n t h e b a r o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i -
    t a t i o n s d e f e a t t h e S t a t e ' s claim b u t n o t t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e
    child Is?
    Chief J u s t i c e