Hall v. Lalli

• Decision Date: 23 September 1997
• Docket Number: CA-CV,No. 2,2
• Citation: 191 Ariz. 104,952 P.2d 748
• Parties: , 252 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 58 In re Joan K. HALL and Stanley E. Lalli, a minor child, Petitioners/Appellants, v. Joseph A. LALLI, Respondent/Appellee. 96-0165.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 748

952 P.2d 748

191 Ariz. 104, 252 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 58

In re Joan K. HALL and Stanley E. Lalli, a minor child, Petitioners/Appellants, v. Joseph A. LALLI, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CV 96-0165.

Court of Appeals of Arizona,

Division 2, Department B.

Sept. 23, 1997.

Review Granted March 17, 1998.

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc. by C. Quince Hopkins, Tucson, for Petitioners/Appellants.

Lawrence E. Condit, P.C. by Lawrence E. Condit, Tucson, for Respondent/Appellee.

OPINION

ESPINOSA, Judge.

Petitioner/appellant Stanley Lalli, by and through his next friend and mother, Joan Hall, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his paternity petition against respondent/appellee Joseph Lalli as barred by res judicata because of the previous dismissal of a paternity action against Lalli brought by the State of Arizona. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Background

Hall and Lalli divorced in 1978 after seven years of marriage. The decree awarded custody of their three minor children to Lalli and stated that Hall was not pregnant. Less than five months later, Hall gave birth to Stanley. Shortly thereafter, Hall began receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. In November 1979, the state filed a "special paternity complaint" against Lalli, alleging he was Stanley's natural father and seeking past and future support. A few months later, the state moved to dismiss the complaint, attaching a handwritten letter apparently signed by Hall stating that Lalli was not Stanley's natural father and that she did not know Stanley's father's last name or his whereabouts. No hearing was requested or held and the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice in March 1980.

In September 1995, Hall filed her own paternity complaint against Lalli. He moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S., alleging the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because her claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. In November, Stanley, through Hall as his next friend, filed a motion to intervene, Rule 24(a), Ariz.R.Civ.P., and a separate "verified petition for paternity." The court granted Stanley's motion and Lalli amended his motion to dismiss, arguing that both Hall's complaint and Stanley's petition were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, waiver, and laches. Following a hearing at which neither Hall nor her attorney appeared, the trial court dismissed Hall's complaint and Stanley's petition on the grounds that the state's prior action involved the same claim and the same "parties or their privies," and the 1980 judgment of dismissal was therefore res judicata as to both Hall and Stanley. This appeal followed. ¹

Standards of Review

In reviewing the trial court's dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), we accept the allegations in the complaint as true and resolve all inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wallace v. Casa Grande Union High School District No. 82, 184 Ariz. 419, 909 P.2d 486 (App.1995). We will uphold the dismissal only if it is certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Id. Whether a claim is precluded as res judicata is a question of law, which we review de novo. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dept. of Corrections, 188 Ariz. 237, 934 P.2d 801 (App.1997).

Privity Between Parent and Child

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment, entered on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies, bars a second suit on the same cause of action and is conclusive as to facts which actually were or could have been decided. Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners, 155 Ariz. 169, 745 P.2d 617 (App.1987). In order for res judicata to apply, there must be a common "identity of the parties, the capacity in which they appear, the subject matter, and the cause of action." Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co., 141 Ariz. 1, 3, 684 P.2d 882, 884 (App.1984), quoting El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State, 123 Ariz. 219, 222, 599 P.2d 175, 178 (1979).

Stanley argues that the trial court erred in finding his petition barred by res judicata because he was neither a party to the underlying action, nor in privity with either the state or his mother. For res judicata purposes, "[a] privy is one who, after rendition of the judgment, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, or purchase." Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin, 172 Ariz. 445, 448, 837 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1992) (citations omitted); see also Garrett v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, 5 Ariz.App. 388, 427 P.2d 369 (1967). Whether there is privity between a parent and a child in this context is a somewhat novel question which appears to have been addressed in only one Arizona decision, Bill v. Gossett, 132 Ariz. 518, 647 P.2d 649 (App.1982), wherein Division One of this court found such privity to exist. Other jurisdictions have held that as a general rule, privity does not arise from the parent-child relationship. See Ex parte Snow, 508 So.2d 266 (Ala.1987); Simcox v. Simcox, 175 Ill.App.3d 473, 124 Ill.Dec. 915, 529 N.E.2d 1032 (1988); Payne v. Cartee, 111 Ohio App.3d 580, 676 N.E.2d 946 (1996); Commonwealth Department of Social Services v. Johnson, 7 Va.App. 614, 376 S.E.2d 787 (1989); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 31 cmt. f (1982).

Relying on Bill, the trial court concluded that Stanley's petition involved the same issues and parties or their privies as the previous state action and was therefore barred. In Bill, the state brought a paternity action with the mother as the complaining witness. The mother and putative father stipulated that the paternity question would be resolved by a polygraph examination of the mother as to whether she had had sexual intercourse with anyone other than the putative father. After the mother failed the test, the state's action was dismissed with prejudice. The minor subsequently brought her own paternity action through her mother. Division One of this court upheld the dismissal, concluding that "the child's interests are inextricably bound to the litigation of a paternity action, whether brought in the name of the state, the mother or the guardian," and that "in addition to the cause of action in both suits being identical, the child's rights and interests are the same in each." 132 Ariz. at 523, 524, 647 P.2d at 654, 655.

Stanley urges us not to follow Bill, arguing its holding "belies the reality of the distinct interests of the potential litigants" and is undermined by its misinterpretation of State v. Sax, 231 Minn. 1, 42 N.W.2d 680 (1950), ² to support the proposition that a mother and child are in privity in paternity actions. In Sax, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a mother's standing to appeal a paternity order in an action brought in the state's name, finding that the proceedings were "for the benefit of the mother as well as the child and the public." Id. at 684. Relying on this language, the Bill court reasoned that Arizona's paternity statutes

evince an intention to benefit the public, mother and child, regardless of who is formally named a party. The state's main goal in a paternity suit is to divest itself of responsibility for supporting the child through various welfare programs. The mother's aim is assuredly economic as well. An order of filiation bears a concomitant obligation for the father to share in childrearing expenses.

132 Ariz. at 523, 647 P.2d at 654. While recognizing that the child has "other independent interests" from the mother and the state, the court nonetheless concluded that regardless of who brings the action, "the issue to be litigated and the effect on the child's rights to support will be equal." Id.

Stanley argues that the Bill court "incorrectly lumped together" the issues of identity of claims and identity of parties, and points out that the Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently criticized Bill 's application of Sax in Johnson v. Hunter, 447 N.W.2d 871 (Minn.1989). In that case, the court reversed a lower court's dismissal of a child's paternity action on res judicata grounds, noting that the parent-child relationship is "traditionally excluded from privity notions," id. at 874, and that Sax did not address the issue of a child's status for res judicata purposes. The court went on to observe that "an Arizona court" had cited Sax in precluding a child's paternity action, and inferentially faulted Bill 's emphasis on "the common economic interest of the state, mother and child, particularly the right to child support, rather than the other interests a child may have." Id. at 875. The court declined to accept the putative father's characterization of the child's interests "as mere 'incidental interests that are part of the package' of any paternity action," without addressing the child's "unique rights." Id. at 876. "Establishment of the parent-child relationship is the most fundamental right a child possesses, to be equated in importance with personal liberty and the most basic constitutional rights." Id.

We are persuaded that Bill focused too narrowly on the economic interests of the state and the mother, and not enough on the distinct and compelling interests of the child. Here, the state's interest in the underlying action was purely economic; it sought to recoup AFDC benefits it had paid, A.R.S. §§ 25-509 and 46-295, and to compel future support. §§ 25-803(A) and 25-809(A). Indeed, the state was expressly prohibited by § 25-803(B) from seeking or defending "any ancillary matters such as custody or visitation." The mother's interests also were solely economic in seeking past and future child support, § 25-809(A), and "the expenses for the lying-in, support of and attendance upon the mother during her confinement." § 25-809(B). While Stanley did...