Palm v. General Painting Co., Inc., 23265

• Citation: 302 S.C. 372,396 S.E.2d 361
• Decision Date: 03 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. 23265,23265
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: James L. PALM, Jr., Deceased, James Lewis Palm, Sandy Ann Palm, a Minor, Shirley Ann Palm Merritt, Rusty Lewis Palm, Minor, Julia Lucille Williams, Veronica Jean Palm Stewart, and Christy Lynn Palm, Minor, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL PAINTING COMPANY, INC., Employer, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Carrier, Defendants, of whom Sandy Ann Palm and Rusty Lewis Palm are now Petitioners, and of whom Christy Lynn Palm is now Respondent. . Heard

Page 361

396 S.E.2d 361

302 S.C. 372

James L. PALM, Jr., Deceased, James Lewis Palm, Sandy Ann

Palm, a Minor, Shirley Ann Palm Merritt, Rusty Lewis Palm, Minor, Julia Lucille Williams, Veronica Jean Palm Stewart, and Christy Lynn Palm, Minor, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL PAINTING COMPANY, INC., Employer, and United States

Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Carrier, Defendants,

of whom Sandy Ann Palm and Rusty Lewis Palm are now Petitioners,

and of whom Christy Lynn Palm is now Respondent.

No. 23265.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard May 3, 1989.

Decided Sept. 17, 1990.

James D. Calmes, III, Greenville, for petitioners.

Ronald S. Clement and Donald L. Pilzer, Greenville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Palm v. General Painting Co., Inc., 296 S.C. 41, 370 S.E.2d 463 (Ct.App.1988), in which the facts of the case are fully recited. The Court of Appeals relied upon an exception to the collateral estoppel doctrine set forth in section 29, comment g of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and held that respondent Christy Palm (Christy) was not precluded by prior family court actions from relitigating the issue of her paternity. We affirm as modified.

Christy was born to Veronica Palm Stewart (Veronica) in 1980 while Veronica was married to James Palm (James). James and Veronica were divorced in 1982. The divorce decree stated that Christy was not James' daughter. Christy was not a party to the divorce action nor was she represented therein by a guardian ad litem. ¹

Subsequently, Veronica married Bobby Stewart (Bobby). In 1985, Veronica and Bobby petitioned the family court to have Christy's name changed and her birth certificate amended to reflect Bobby as Christy's father. A guardian ad litem was appointed for Christy and he joined in the petition. No request was made in this action for termination of James' parental rights or adoption of Christy by Bobby. On April 1, 1985, the family court issued an order declaring Christy to be Bobby's daughter, changing Christy's name, and directing that her birth certificate be amended to reflect the changes. The issue before this Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the collateral estoppel doctrine did not apply to the name-change action.

The Court of Appeals held that the issue of Christy's paternity could reasonably have been resolved otherwise had the guardian ad litem contested the allegations of the petition and not joined in the prayer. Its finding was based upon the following exception to the collateral estoppel doctrine:

A party is not precluded from relitigating an issue with another where "[t]he...