W.B. v. M.G.R., 66548

Decision Date29 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. 66548,66548
Citation905 S.W.2d 134
PartiesW.B., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. M.G.R., T.J.R. and M.E.R., Defendants/Respondents.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

William B. Beedie, Farmington, for appellant.

John P. Heisserer, Cape Girardeau, Kevan L. Karraker, Farmington, for respondents.

CRAHAN, Judge.

W.B. ("Plaintiff") appeals the dismissal of his cause of action seeking a declaration that he is the father of a minor child ("M.E.R."). 1 We affirm.

At the time of M.E.R.'s birth, her mother ("Mother") was married to Defendant M.G.R. ("Defendant"). Mother and Defendant were first married on October 16, 1976 and three children were born during the marriage, two sons and M.E.R. Mother and Defendant were separated on June 25, 1984, ten days after M.E.R.'s birth. A decree of dissolution was entered on October 3, 1984. In the decree, the court found that the three children were born of the marriage, awarded custody of all three children to Mother and ordered Defendant to pay child support.

Mother and Defendant married a second time on February 2, 1985. That marriage was dissolved on June 8, 1992. In that decree, the court again found that all three children were born of the marriage, awarded custody of all three children to Mother and ordered Defendant to pay child support.

Two months after the second dissolution, Mother married Plaintiff. Thereafter, on January 26, 1993, the court entered an order modifying the decree and transferred custody of the two sons from Mother to Defendant. Custody of M.E.R. remained with Mother. Child support for all three children was terminated. 2

On February 17, 1993, Plaintiff filed a two count petition seeking a declaration that he was the biological father of M.E.R. In support of his petition, he attached an affidavit signed by him and Mother acknowledging his paternity of M.E.R.

Defendant's first motion to dismiss was denied. On May 17, 1994, Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss asserting that the petition failed to state a cause of action and was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court sustained that motion without specifying the grounds for its ruling and Plaintiff appealed.

In his sole point on appeal, Plaintiff asserts the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. Because the trial court did not specify its reasons for dismissing the petition, we presume the court acted for one of the reasons stated in Defendant's motion to dismiss. Johnston v. Norrell Health Care, Inc., 835 S.W.2d 565, 567 (Mo.App.1992). We will affirm the order of dismissal if any ground supports the motion, regardless of whether the trial court relied on that ground. Kahn v. Kahn, 846 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Mo.App.1993).

In their briefs, both parties focus on the propriety of dismissing the action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Before addressing that issue, however, it is first necessary to determine whether the petition states a cause of action under the Uniform Parentage Act ("UPA"). The UPA is the exclusive means for determining paternity in Missouri. P.L.K. v. D.R.K., 852 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Mo.App.1993).

The UPA contains specific procedures governing determination of paternity or non-paternity which differ in certain respects depending on whether the child has a "presumed father" and the factual setting that gives rise to the presumption. There is no dispute that Defendant is M.E.R.'s "presumed father" under the UPA because he and Mother were married at the time M.E.R. was born. § 210.822.1(1) RSMo 1994. 3 Plaintiff acknowledges in his petition that Defendant and Mother were lawfully married when M.E.R. was born.

Plaintiff urges that this action is authorized pursuant to § 210.826.2, which permits "any interested party" to bring an action at any time to determine the existence of a father and child relationship presumed under § 210.822.1(4). Section 210.822.1(4) provides:

A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:

(4) He acknowledges his paternity of the child in an affidavit which is also signed by the natural mother and filed with the bureau. If another man is presumed under this section to be the child's father, acknowledgement may be accomplished only with the written consent of the presumed father or after the presumption has been rebutted.

By their express terms, neither § 210.826.2 nor § 210.822.1(4) authorize this action to declare Plaintiff to be the natural father of M.E.R. Section 210.826.2 only authorizes an action to determine the existence of a father and child relationship "presumed under subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of section 210.822." Although Plaintiff filed an affidavit in which he attempted to satisfy the first sentence of § 210.822.1(4), the petition on its face establishes that another man is the presumed father by virtue of § 210.822.1(1). T...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Community Title Co. v. U.S. Title Guar. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 1998
    ...an action will be affirmed if any ground supports the motion, regardless whether the trial court relied on that ground. W.B. v. M.G.R., 905 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Mo.App.1995); Kahn v. Kahn, 846 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Mo.App.1993). If it clearly appears from the petition that the cause of action is bar......
  • Mo. Bond Co. v. Devore
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 2022
    ...Atmore Property Owners are premature, and the proper remedy is for the claim to be dismissed without prejudice. See W.B. v. M.G.R. , 905 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (holding a premature legal action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed wit......
  • Consolidated Financial Investments, Inc. v. Manion
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 1997
    ...the reason for its decision, we presume the trial court acted for one of the reasons stated in defendants' motion. W.B. v. M.G.R., 905 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). II. Failure to State Cause of In their sole point, plaintiffs allege the trial court erred in dismissing the petition. T......
  • Boulds v. Chase Auto Finance Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2008
    ...its grounds for dismissal, we presume the court acted on one of the reasons stated in the motion to dismiss. E.g., W.B. v. M.G.R., 905 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). We affirm the dismissal as a matter of law if any ground within the motion to dismiss supports the ruling, regardless of......
  • 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