Fife v. Martin, 93-248

Citation863 P.2d 403,261 Mont. 471
Decision Date10 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 93-248,93-248
PartiesDavid Elliott FIFE, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Patricia Lee MARTIN, Respondent and Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

Paul Neal Cooley, Skelton & Cooley, Missoula, for petitioner and appellant.

John McRae, Child Support Enforcement Div., James P. Taylor, Missoula, Lynn M. Grant, Child Support Enforcement Div., Helena, for respondent and respondent.

TURNAGE, Chief Justice.

Petitioner David Fife brought this action seeking judicial review of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Child Support Enforcement Division's (CSED's), order which required him to submit to blood testing for purposes of establishing paternity. The District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denied Fife's petition for failure to properly serve CSED with a copy of the petition, as required by the provisions of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. After petitioner moved for relief from the court's order, the court found that he served neither the Attorney General nor CSED as required by law, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Petitioner appeals from that ruling. We affirm.

The pertinent issues are rephrased as follows:

1. Whether CSED is a necessary party to an action for judicial review of its administrative paternity hearing and subsequent order;

2. Whether, in an action for judicial review of an agency decision, service of process is valid when the petitioner fails to serve the agency properly and promptly after filing the petition for review;

3. Whether a district court may dismiss an action for judicial review of an agency decision for failure of the petitioner to validly serve process, when the court has not received a responsive pleading from the agency involved.

Patricia Lee Martin (Patricia), a single mother, gave birth to B.J.M. on September 30, 1981. Approximately ten years later, she applied for public assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, and named David Elliot Fife (David) as B.J.M.'s father. As part of the application process she assigned all of her rights to collect delinquent, future and present child support obligations from the putative father to the State of Montana, Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

CSED thereafter sought enforcement of its assigned rights by attempting to establish the paternity of B.J.M. It sent David a notice of parental responsibility, and then set a date for an administrative hearing on the matter.

David in return moved the agency to dismiss the action, challenging the constitutionality of CSED's process to determine paternity by compelled blood drawings. Acknowledging that constitutional issues cannot be determined in CSED's administrative forum, the hearing examiner denied David's motion. Following the hearing, the hearing examiner concluded there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable probability that David may be the father of B.J.M., and ordered David to submit to paternity blood testing.

On November 19, 1992, David moved CSED to stay its decision and transmit the administrative record to the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, where he planned to file a petition for judicial review. On November 23, 1992, CSED responded by denying David's motion on the grounds that CSED had not been served with a petition for judicial review of its administrative hearing order.

David thereafter filed a petition for judicial review at the District Court on November 25, 1992. He later (on or about November 30, 1992) mailed copies of the petition to both Patricia and CSED. In his petition, David named Patricia as the sole respondent.

On December 3, 1992, David sent notice that he had filed a petition for judicial review to the administrative hearing examiner, CSED, and Patricia. The notice stated that a copy of the petition was "attached to the original [petition for judicial review]," which had been previously mailed to CSED and to Patricia.

CSED filed a copy of the transcript and administrative hearing record with the court; it neither answered the mailed petition for judicial review or the notice of filing nor appeared in court. Subsequently, David obtained and sent a summons to CSED and Patricia. He also sent an acknowledgement of service form to each of those parties on January 11, 1993. However, CSED did not accept service of process or acknowledge service of the summons and complaint as required by Rule 4D, M.R.Civ.P.

Prior to trial, the court reviewed the record and David's petition and dismissed the action on the grounds that CSED had not been properly named nor served with process. The court also denied David's motion to stay the agency's decision.

David moved for relief from the order of dismissal on February 8, 1993, arguing, among other things, that the court should not have reviewed the administrative hearing record, that the order deprives him of his day in court, and that CSED was not a necessary party to the proceedings before the court. In its response, CSED agreed with the court's holding that David had failed to properly serve the parties involved in the action.

By order dated March 23, 1993, the court reiterated its previous ruling, and also found that David had failed to serve the Attorney General's Office. David appeals.

I

Is CSED a necessary party to an action for judicial review of its administrative paternity hearing and subsequent order?

In his petition for judicial review, David named Patricia as the sole respondent. His present argument, which is not specific, is that he could not properly serve the State because the case had already been dismissed in the District Court. Additionally, he asserts that "[n]either the State nor CSED were parties before the Administrative Hearing Examiner." In the same paragraph of his brief, he contrarily states that "CSED, however, did represent [Patricia's] interests."

David's arguments are not persuasive. Patricia had assigned her child-support collection rights over to CSED as part of the Aid to Dependent Families with Children application process. CSED is the real party in interest in the paternity action and in the underlying attempt to recover payment of child support benefits from the putative father of B.J.M. See § 40-5-232, MCA. Immediately prior to the hearing, the hearing examiner correctly gave notice to the parties that CSED was the real party in interest, by stating

[s]ection 40-5-232 of the Montana Code states that if the paternity of child has not been established, the Department [CSED] may proceed to establish the paternity administratively as allowed by Section 40-5-231 through 40-5-237 Montana Code Annotated. [Emphasis supplied].

CSED initiated proceedings to determine paternity; Patricia was merely assisting the agency in determining the identity of B.J.M.'s father. See §§ 40-5-202 and -204, MCA. Moreover, the record reveals that David, CSED and Patricia were all represented in their individual capacities during the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Roberts v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 96-127
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1996
  • Pickens v. Shelton-Thompson
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • May 23, 2000
    ...review is a threshold requirement for a district court to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Fife v. Martin (1993), 261 Mont. 471, 477, 863 P.2d 403, 407 (overruled on other grounds by Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore (1996), 277 Mont. 324, 331, 922 P.2d 469, 473). In that regard......
  • Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 23, 1996
    ...Procedure Act requires service on agencies and parties pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4, M.R.Civ.P., as we held in Fife v. Martin (1993), 261 Mont. 471, 863 P.2d 403, or pursuant to the provisions of Rule 5, In 1991, Ashmore brought a claim before the Commission alleging that Hilands ha......
  • K.J.B. v. Cardona
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • December 9, 2014
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT