WALTER v PUBLIC AUCTION YARDS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14323 I N THE SUPIiEME COUIiT OF THE STATE: OF MONTANA 1978 cm m 2 L. l u J BOICHERS, Petitioner ard Respondent, -VS- JOHN RAYMOND McCARTEFt, JR., Respondent and Appellant. m a 1 frm: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eleventh Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: m d e n , Walterskirchen & Christiansen, Kalispell, bbntana Richard DeJana argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Patrick Springer, County Attorney, Kalispell, Wntana Russell K. Jones argued, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana Fbbert Allison, Kalispell, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed : November 17, 1978 MAR 2 . 1979 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. On September 1 4 , 1 9 7 6 , p e t i t i o n e r , C h a r l e n e L . B o r c h e r s , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n and o r d e r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County, p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e " R e v i s e d Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement o f S u p p o r t A c t ( 1 9 6 8 ) " [URESA], s e c t i o n s 93-2601-41 2601-82, MCA. R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 40-5-101 t h r o u g h 93- t h r o u g h 40-5-142 On December 1 3 t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e matter b e h e l d i n a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g a n a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e paternity issue. R e s p o n d e n t , J o h n Raymond M c C a r t e r , J r . , was s u b s e q u e n t l y f o u n d t o b e t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s d a u g h t e r f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l commencing March 6 , 1978. H e appeals. P e t i t i o n e r and r e s p o n d e n t m e t i n J u n e 1965 w h i l e worki n g a t a r e t i r e m e n t home i n t h e S t a t e o f Oregon. A t the t i m e t h e y m e t , p e t i t i o n e r was m a r r i e d t o C a r l B o r c h e r s , b u t t h e y p a r t e d i n December 1965. H e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h respon- d e n t t h e n d e v e l o p e d r a p i d l y , and s h e became p r e g n a n t . In J u n e 1966, r e s p o n d e n t moved t o D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , b u t continued t o correspond with p e t i t i o n e r . On November 1, 1 9 6 6 , p e t i t i o n e r g a v e b i r t h t o a baby g i r l . A t t h e t i m e of t h e b i r t h , p e t i t i o n e r w a s lawfully married t o C a r l Borchers. H i s name a p p e a r s on t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e as t h e f a t h e r . P e t i t i o n e r subsequently o b t a i n e d a d i v o r c e from him on November 30, 1966, h a v i n g waited u n t i l a f t e r t h e baby's b i r t h t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e divorce proceedings. Over t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t s e v e r a l y e a r s , p e t i t i o n e r made a number o f a t t e m p t s t o o b t a i n c h i l d s u p p o r t payments from r e s p o n d e n t p u r s u a n t t o URESA. I n 1967, she f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r s u p p o r t i n Marion County, Oregon. I t was forwarded t o Lake County, Montana, b u t n e v e r p r o s e c u t e d . A second URESA p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d i n Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and forwarded t o Lake County, Montana, i n 1969. Again, no a c t i o n w a s t a k e n on t h e p e t i t i o n . A f t e r 1969 p e t i t i o n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e l o s t t r a c k of r e s p o n d e n t f o r some y e a r s . During t h i s t i m e s h e was remar- r i e d , i n 1971, and l a t e r d i v o r c e d , i n 1973. The n e x t URESA p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n Benton County, Oregon, i n 1975, and forwarded t o Denver County, Colorado. A l i t t l e more t h a n a y e a r l a t e r a f o u r t h p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n Benton County, Oregon, and forwarded t o Boulder County, Colorado. Then, on September 3 , 1976, a f i f t h p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n Benton County, Oregon, and forwarded t o F l a t h e a d County, Montana. T h i s l a s t p e t i t i o n forms t h e b a s i s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . No e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t o show t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s u n t i l 1976. A f t e r h e had been s e r v e d i n 1976, a h e a r i n g was h e l d a t which t i m e r e s p o n d e n t moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c i t a t i o n and a s s e r t e d a s a d e f e n s e t h a t h e was n o t t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d named i n t h e p e t i t i o n . December 1 3 , 1976, t h e Honorable James M. On Salansky ordered: " 1 . T h a t t h i s m a t t e r b e h e l d i n abeyance u n t i l P e t i t i o n e r , t h r o u g h h e r own c o u n s e l , b r i n g s a n a c t i o n f o r p a t e r n i t y a g a i n s t Respondent. " 2 . T h a t upon judgment b e i n g e n t e r e d i n any a c t i o n f o r p a t e r n i t y b r o u g h t by P e t i t i o n e r a g a i n s t Respondent t h e C o u r t w i l l a g a i n c o n s i d e r t h e above m a t t e r . " On August 2 4 , 1977, t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r F l a t h e a d County f i l e d a " P e t i t i o n f o r D e t e r m i n a t i o n of P a t e r n i t y " i n t h e same c o u r t and under t h e same c a u s e number a s t h e a c t i o n which had p r e v i o u s l y been h e l d i n abeyance. Following a f l u r r y of p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , t h e t r i a l began on March 6, 1978, and r e s u l t e d i n a j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g : " 1 . The presumption t h a t C a r l H. B o r c h e r s i s t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of Jayne Eliazabeth [ s i c ] Borchers has - been r e b u t t e d . " 2 . John Raymond McCarter, J r . , i s t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of J a y n e E l i z a b e t h ~ o r c h e r s . " Respondent a p p e a l s from t h i s j u r y v e r d i c t , and p e t i t i o n e r h a s moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s p r e m a t u r e . A number of i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w b u t w e f i n d two i s s u e s t o b e d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s c a s e : 1. Whether t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d f o r a b s e n c e o f a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n from which a n a p p e a l may b e t a k e n . 2. Whether f a i l u r e t o r e b u t t h e presumption t h a t C a r l B o r c h e r s was t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d w i t h i n f i v e years of t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h b a r s a p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t a nonpresumed p e r s o n . On May 4 , 1978, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of a p p e a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. On May 23, p e t i t i o n e r moved t h i s C o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l on t h e grounds t h a t ". . . no f i n a l , a p p e a l a b l e judgment and o r d e r of s u p p o r t [had] been entered i n t h i s action without b r i e f . . . ." The motion was s u b m i t t e d Respondent a r g u e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e motion t o d i s m i s s t h a t t h e p a t e r n i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t h e s u p p o r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n a r e , i n e f f e c t , s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s and t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s an a p p e a l a b l e f i n a l judgment under Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P. S e c t i o n 93-2601-67, MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-5-128 provides: " I f t h e o b l i g o r asserts a s a d e f e n s e t h a t he i s n o t t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d f o r whom s u p p o r t i s s o u g h t and i t a p p e a r s t o t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e i s n o t f r i v o l o u s , and i f b o t h of t h e p a r t i e s a r e p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g o r t h e proof required i n t h e case i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e presence of e i t h e r o r b o t h of t h e p a r t i e s i s n o t n e c e s s a r y , t h e c o u r t may a d j u d i c a t e t h e p a t e r n i t y i s s u e . O t h e r w i s e t h e c o u r t may a d j o u r n t h e h e a r i n g u n t i l t h e p a t e r n i t y i s s u e h a s been adjudicated." C i t i n g B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y (Rev. 4 t h Ed. 1 9 6 8 ) , t h e Oregon Supreme C o u r t f o u n d a n " a d j u d i c a t i o n " t o b e " t h e g i v i n g o r p r o n o u n c i n g a judgment o r d e c r e e i n a c a u s e . " Vasquez v . C o u r t n e y ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 272 O r . 477, 537 P.2d 536, 537. S e e a l s o , Leonard v . Leonard ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 88 I d a h o 485, 401 P.2d 541, 545; a n d , S t a t e v . Hoffman ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 230 O r . 9 8 , 385 P.2d 741, 743-44. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f December 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 , i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g " [ t l h a t upon in judgment b e i n g e n t e r e d - any a c t i o n f o r p a t e r n i t y b r o u g h t by P e t i t i o n e r a g a i n s t Respondent t h e C o u r t w i l l a g a i n cons i d e r t h e above m a t t e r . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t r e t u r n e d March 7 , 1978, amounted, i n s u b s t a n c e , t o a f i n a l judgment from which a n a p p e a l may b e t a k e n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1, M.R.App.Civ.P. W e a r e l e f t , then, w i t h t h e t a s k of determining whether f a i l u r e t o r e b u t t h e presumption t h a t C a r l Borchers w a s t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d w i t h i n f i v e y e a r s of t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h should have b a r r e d t h i s p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t a nonpresumed p e r s o n . W e f i n d t h a t i t should have. I n 1950 t h e N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of Commissioners o n Uniform S t a t e Laws a p p r o v e d t h e Uniform R e c i p r o c a l E n f o r c e ment o f S u p p o r t A c t . 1 9 5 2 , 1958, and 1968. The A c t was s u b s e q u e n t l y amended i n Montana f i r s t a d o p t e d URESA i n 1 9 5 1 , Ch. 222, Laws o f Montana ( 1 9 5 1 ) . That a c t w a s replaced i n 1 9 6 1 when Montana a d o p t e d t h e 1958 v e r s i o n o f URESA, Ch. 208, Laws o f Montana ( 1 9 6 1 ) . Then, i n 1 9 6 9 , Montana a d o p t e d the ~ e v i s e d Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement o f S u p p o r t A c t , ~ h 237, Laws of Montana ( 1 9 6 9 ) . . 8 1 , R.C.M. W e n o t e s e c t i o n 93-2601- 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-5-142 MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t l h i s act s h a l l be s o construed a s t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s g e n e r a l p u r p o s e t o make u n i f o r m t h e l a w o f t h o s e s t a t e s which e n a c t i t . " A number o f r e c e n t c a s e s , a r i s i n g i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s which have n o t a d o p t e d t h e 1968 r e v i s e d a c t , have a f f i r m a t i v e l y answered t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r URESA, a b s e n t t h e 1968 amendment e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d i n g f o r p a t e r n i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i m p l i c i t l y authorizes c o u r t s t o determine p a t e r n i t y . G r e e n s t r e e t v . C l a r k (Iowa 1 9 7 6 ) , 239 N.W.2d v . B r i d e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 273 O r . See 143; C l a r k s t o n 68, 539 P.2d 1094; a n d , Yetter v . Comrneau ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 84 Wash.2d 1 5 5 , 524 P.2d 901. Montana h a s a d o p t e d t h e c l e a r s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e o f s e c t i o n 27 o f t h e R e v i s e d Uniform A c t , l e a v i n g no q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r a c o u r t c a n d e t e r m i n e p a t e r n i t y a s p a r t o f a URESA a c t i o n i n t h i s s t a t e , s e c t i o n 93-2601-67, 5-128 MCA. R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40- However, s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e s f o r a d d r e s s i n g t h e p a t e r n i t y i s s u e are n o t s e t f o r t h i n t h e r e v i s e d uniform act. Our l e g i s l a t u r e h a s , t h o u g h , p r o v i d e d a s t a t u t o r y method o f d e t e r m i n i n g p a t e r n i t y u n d e r t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e Act, s e c t i o n 61-301 e t s e q . , 1 0 1 e t s e q . MCA. R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 40-6- When f a c e d w i t h s t a t u t e s which a d d r e s s t h e same s u b j e c t , w e "must harmonize [ t h e m ] , i f p o s s i b l e , and g i v e e f f e c t t o each." S t a t e e x r e l . I r v i n v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 513, 524, 525 P.2d 564, 570. "where s t a t u t e s r e l a t e t o t h e s a m e general s u b j e c t they should be s o c o n s t r u e d t o g e t h e r , where t h e r e i s no i n c o n s i s t e n c y between them, s o as t o g i v e e f f e c t t o b o t h where p o s s i b l e . " C i t y of B i l l i n g s v . Smith ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 197, 212, 490 The c o u r t i n C l a r k s t o n , s u p r a , n o t i n g s i m i l a r circumstances, stated: "Since t h e i s s u e s involved i n e s t a b l i s h i n g patern i t y i n a URESA p r o c e e d i n g p r e c i s e l y p a r a l l e l t h o s e r a i s e d i n a f i l i a t i o n proceeding, w e b e l i e v e t h a t , a b s e n t some d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p o l i c y , p a r a l l e l p r o c e dures should be followed. "The URESA i s a r e m e d i a l s t a t u t e d e s i g n e d t o e q u a l i z e t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of r e s i d e n c e and nonr e s i d e n t p l a i n t i f f s i n support proceedings. While i t r e f l e c t s a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n minimizing t h e a d d i t i o n a l b u r d e n s and e x p e n s e s which would o t h e r w i s e b e i n c u r r e d by n o n r e s i d e n t p l a i n t i f f s , t h i s i n t e r e s t must b e b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t a l e g i s l a t i v e c o n c e r n f o r t h e s e n s i t i v i t y of p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a t i o n s and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y of providing procedural p r o t e c t i o n s f o r such determinaC l a r k s t o n , 539 P.2d a t 1099. tions . . ." The Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t r e c o g n i z e s t h i s c o n n e c t i o n i n s e c t i o n 6 1 - 3 0 9 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-109 (1) MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s j u r s i d i c t i o n of a n a c t i o n b r o u g h t under t h i s a c t . The a c t i o n may b e j o i n e d w i t h a n a c t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n , annulment, s e p a r a t e maintenance, s u p p o r t , o r a d o p t i o n . " (Emphasis added. ) W e h o l d t h e n t h a t t h e i s s u e of p a t e r n i t y i n a URESA a c t i o n s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e "Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , " s e c t i o n 61-301 e t s e q . , 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-101 e t s e q . MCA. R.C.M. See M a t t e r of M a r r i a g e o f G r i d l e y ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 28 Or-App. 1 4 5 , 558 P.2d 1277, I n a p p l y i n g t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t a s a d o p t e d i n Montana, t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w e f i r s t n o t e t h a t s e c t i o n 61-305, R.C.M. provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-105 MCA, " ( 1 ) A man i s presumed t o b e t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f a child i f : " ( a ) h e and t h e c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l mother a r e o r have been m a r r i e d t o e a c h o t h e r and t h e c h i l d i s b o r n d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , o r w i t h i n t h r e e hundred (300) d a y s a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e i s t e r m i n a t e d by d e a t h , annulment, d e c l a r a t i o n o f i n v a l i d i t y , o r d i v o r c e , o r a f t e r a d e c r e e of s e p a r a t i o n i s e n t e r e d by a court; " ( 2 ) A presumption under t h i s s e c t i o n may be r e b u t t e d i n a n a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n by a prepondera n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e . " Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o o u r s t a t u t e , C a r l B o r c h e r s i s t h e presumed f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d . S e c t i o n 61-307, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-107 MCA, a d d r e s s e s who may b r i n g a n a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e a f a t h e r and child relationship. " ( 1 ) Any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y may b r i n g a n a c t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o r none x i s t e n c e of t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p presumed p u r s u a n t - s e c t i o n 61-305. to " ( 2 ) An a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c h i l d who h a s no presumed f a t h e r under s e c t i o n 61-305 may be b r o u g h t by t h e c h i l d , t h e mother o r p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e c h i l d , t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f s o c i a l and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n services o r its appropriate local a f f i l i a t e , the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r a p a r e n t of t h e mother i f t h e mother h a s d i e d , a man a l l e g e d o r a l l e g i n g himself t o be t h e f a t h e r , o r t h e personal repres e n t a t i v e o r a p a r e n t of t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r i f t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r h a s d i e d o r i s a minor." (Emphasis a d d e d . ) T h e r e f o r e , i n Montana, a p e r s o n w i s h i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c h i l d and a nonpresumed p e r s o n , where t h e c h i l d h a s a p r e sumed f a t h e r p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 61-305, X.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-105 MCA, must f i r s t r e b u t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r e sumption of p a t e r n i t y i n a n o t h e r . As a result, t i o n 40-6-108(1) s e c t i o n 6 1 - 3 0 8 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. MCA, 1947, now s e c - a p p l i e s t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and b a r s a n a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s p o n d e n t and t h e minor d a u g h t e r . " ( 1 ) L i m i t a t i o n when f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p i s presumed. " ( a ) An a c t i o n may b e commenced a t any t i m e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e c l a r i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p presumed under paragraph ( a ) , ( b ) , o r ( c ) of s e c t i o n 61-305(1); orI " ( b ) - - p u r p o s e of d e c l a r i n g t h e n o n e x i s t e n c e For t h e - th o f -e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p presumed under p a r a g r a p h (a), (b), o r ( c ) of s e c t i o n 61-305(1) on y f -l-i -t h e a c t i o n i s b r o u g h t w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e a f t e r ~ b t a i n i n g k n o w l e d ~ e relevant facts, of b u t - - e v e n t l a t e r --- e a r s a f t e r i n no than f i v e (5) y the child's birth. A f t e r t h e ~ r e s u m ~ t i o n s been ha r e b u t t e d , p a t e r n i t y of t h e c h i l d by a n o t h e r man may b e d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e same a c t i o n , i f he h a s been made a p a r t y . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) Reversed and remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r a n o r d e r dismissing the action. W e concur: Justices
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
