D. P. v. Stewart

California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 1987 No. A030401Published

Before: Rouse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prior URESA proceeding in Texas did not bar a subsequent paternity action under the doctrine of res judicata because the Texas court's order did not definitively adjudicate the issue of paternity.

Issues

Whether an adjudication of paternity is within the scope of a URESA proceeding under Texas law.
Whether the Texas court's prior order constituted a final adjudication of paternity sufficient to trigger res judicata.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We determine that the trial court erred in holding the action barred by the doctrine of res judicata and consequently reverse.”

“The Texas trial court’s order adjudged that paternity was not established by the evidence “at this time,” thus indicating that it might be established at some future time.”

“California courts should not bar a paternity action on the basis of res judicata unless the record demonstrates without doubt that another court previously intended to and actually did adjudicate the issue of paternity.”

Opinion

ROUSE, J.

Marjorie P., both individually and in her capacity as guardian ad litem of her minor son, D. P., appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in an action to determine the existence of a father and child relationship and for child support. We determine that the trial court erred in holding the action barred by the doctrine of res judicata and consequently reverse.

In July 1977, Marjorie P., through the Marin County District Attorney, filed a complaint in the Marin County Superior Court against Jimmy D. Stewart under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968 (RURESA, Code Civ. Proc., § 1650 et seq.), action No. 85402. The petition alleged that Marjorie is the mother and Jimmy the father of D. P., a minor bom April 12, 1975, and residing with Marjorie in Marin County. It also alleged that public assistance had been provided to D. P. in the amount of $282 per month and sought an order requiring Jimmy to make future support payments in that amount. The petition alleged that Jimmy was residing in Denton, Texas.

On July 22,1977, a Marin County Superior Court judge issued a certificate and order for transmission of three copies of the complaint to the clerk of the District Court of Denton County, Texas. On September 7, 1977, Jimmy filed an answer in that court alleging, inter alia, that no relationship of paternity existed between him and D. P. and that he therefore owed no duty of support. On September 21, 1977, a judge of the District Court of Denton County entered an order providing that, “after examining the pleadings and listening to the evidence and argument of counsel,” the court found “that paternity is not established in [Jimmy] by the evidence

at this time

and further that there is nothing in the law to require [Jimmy] to support D. P.” (Italics added.) The order noted that Maijorie had appeared through counsel (the District Attorney of Denton County) and that Jimmy had appeared in person and through counsel. The record before us does not indicate what evidence was presented to or considered by the Texas court.

[247]

On February 5, 1979, the Marin County District Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the RURESA action “for the reason that paternity cannot be established.” The motion was granted on that date.

D. P. v. Stewart

AI Brief

ROUSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief