Ex parte L.F.B.
Decision Date | 10 January 1992 |
Citation | 599 So.2d 1179 |
Parties | Ex parte L.F.B., as Executor of the Estate of R.V.M., Deceased. (Re L.F.B., executor of the Estate of R.V.M., deceased v. K.M.M., a minor, By and Through her guardian ad litem, Phillip J. Sarris.) 1901785. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
D. Leon Ashford and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Phillip J. Sarris, Birmingham, for respondent.
We issued the writ of certiorari in this case to review the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment affirming the juvenile court's holding that a personal representative of the estate of a presumed father has no standing to bring a paternity action under the Uniform Parentage Act. 599 So.2d 1178.
R.V.M. and J.B.M. were married on March 2, 1982. In April 1982, J.B.M. learned that she was pregnant and, on December 25, 1982, she gave birth to K.M.M. Prior to K.M.M.'s birth, R.V.M. and J.B.M. separated, and R.V.M. filed for divorce, alleging that J.B.M. had been pregnant at the time of their marriage through the agency of another. Although a laboratory test done in November 1982 revealed that R.V.M. was sterile, he was listed as K.M.M.'s father on her birth certificate. During the divorce proceedings, however, R.V.M. and J.B.M. agreed that R.V.M. was not the father of K.M.M. and, on February 25, 1983, the divorce was granted. The trial court determined that R.V.M. would have no visitation rights and no obligation to support K.M.M.; K.M.M. was not made a party to the divorce proceedings and was not represented by a guardian ad litem during those divorce proceedings.
R.V.M. was killed in an automobile accident on September 12, 1986, and L.F.B. was appointed executor of R.V.M.'s estate. R.V.M. left his entire estate to his child from a previous marriage. On February 18, 1987, a claim was filed in the probate court on behalf of K.M.M., asserting that R.V.M. was her father and that she was, therefore, entitled to any statutory exemptions and to one-half of any wrongful death proceeds recovered as a result of R.V.M.'s death. The probate court concluded that R.V.M. was not K.M.M.'s father and that K.M.M. was, therefore, not entitled to any statutory exemptions.
On appeal by K.M.M., by and through her guardian ad litem, this Court, in Ex parte Martin, 565 So.2d 1 (Ala.1989), held that the divorce judgment did not destroy the usual presumption in a paternity case that a child born to a married woman is the child of the mother's husband; that the divorce judgment is not binding on K.M.M., because she was not joined as a party or represented by a guardian ad litem; and that the probate court was not the proper forum for a paternity determination. 1 We remanded the case for a hearing in the juvenile court on the paternity issue.
On October 22, 1990, L.F.B., as personal representative of the estate of R.V.M., petitioned the juvenile court, pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act, for a declaration that R.V.M. was not the father of K.M.M. The juvenile court entered a summary judgment for K.M.M., and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
The personal representative contends that a paternity action is equitable in nature and, therefore, that a paternity cause of action under the Uniform Parentage Act survives the death of a presumed father, giving the personal representative of the estate of a presumed father standing to bring the paternity action. K.M.M. contends that paternity actions are legal, not equitable, in nature and that courts should strictly construe the language of the Uniform Parentage act, which does not specifically allow a personal representative of the estate of a presumed father to bring a paternity action.
The precise issue of whether paternity actions are legal or equitable in nature has not been addressed by this Court. In E.R.B. v. J.H.F., 496 A.2d 607, 612 (D.C.App.1985), the court of appeals held that a paternity action is equitable in nature and that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in such proceedings. Specifically, that court stated that "insofar as the central purpose of paternity proceedings under the present Code is to provide financial support for the child, these actions are equitable in nature" and, in a footnote, that court wrote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JWO v. CAP
...of a case name, see Martin v. Burkhimer, 565 So.2d 1 (Ala.1989), L.F.B. v. K.M.M., 599 So.2d 1178 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), and Ex parte L.F.B., 599 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1992). ...
-
JWJ, JR. v. PKR
...held that when a child is not made a party and represented in the litigation, he is not bound by the judgment. See also Ex parte L.F.B., 599 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1992). "The court's failure to make the child a party and to appoint him a guardian... does not undermine the effect of the judgment a......
-
Estate of Swift v. Bullington
...“[a]n action brought under the [UPA] is an equitable action,” and paternity claims are equitable in nature. See Ex parte L.F.B., 599 So.2d 1179, 1181–82 (Ala.1992). In addition, Mother's reliance on cases that have held that a paternity action abates where the death of the father occurs dur......
-
SCG v. JGY
...held that when a child is not made a party and represented in the litigation, he is not bound by the judgment. See also Ex parte L.F.B., 599 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1992). The court's failure to make the child a party and to appoint him a guardian in this case does not undermine the effect of the j......