STATE DEPT OF REV v FATZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-369 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL REHABILITIVE SERVICES, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, vs . ALFRED J. WILSON, Respondent and Respondent. No. 80-423 STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, VS . ROBERT JAMES FATZ, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade. Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana James, Gray & McCafferty, Great Falls, Montana Fausto Turrin argued, Great Falls, Montana Asselstine & Cruikshank, Great Falls, Montana Brett C. Asselstine argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: Filed: AU6 1 1 19W Decided: Clerk June 10, 1981 August 11-, 1981 H o n o r a b l e Mark P . S u l l i v a n , Opinion of t h e C o u r t . District Judge, delivered the T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from j u d g m e n t s g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t s by the District Court of the Eighth J u d i c i a l District in p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t them by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue and the S e r v i c e s (SRS) Department of Rehabilitation for judgments contending that of limitations on the determination paternity, section 40-6-108, MCA, had run appellants filed the statute and . R e s p o n d e n t s had moved the Social District State. the petitions. Court dismissed Appellants allege at the of time I n g r a n t i n g t h e motions, the the petitions statute of filed by limitations the is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s h o u l d be s t r u c k down. A m a l e c h i l d was b o r n o u t o f wedlock t o E.F.L.R. March 2 2 , 1 9 7 6 . A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e , applied state to support for the the child, for public assistance, of the mother's on May claim for 1979, 22, including action against The S t a t e a l s o o b t a i n e d an a s s i g n m e n t when t h e baby was b o r n . Wilson t h e mother and g a v e SRS s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n which would be enough t o s t a r t a p a t e r n i t y A l f r e d J . W i l s o n 11. on b i r t h of t h e c h i l d . s u p p o r t from t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r The S t a t e b r o u g h t more than three action against years after the The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n on m o t i o n o f t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r . On A u g u s t 11, 1 9 7 2 , M.L. Sometime t h e r e a f t e r ested party because support t o SRS. child's birth, t h e S t a t e of the mother On A u g u s t 4 , SRS g a v e b i r t h t o a male c h i l d . filed a Montana became a n assigned rights to 1980, e i g h t y e a r s a f t e r the petition her inter- against Robert F a t z t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y and o b t a i n s u p p o r t moneys. James Thereafter, on August 27, counsel 1980, for Robert James F a t z f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e r e q u i r i n g b l o o d t e s t s and a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n . On September 1980, 5, Honorable J o e l G. oral arguments were heard by the Roth and on S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t is w h e t h e r t h e t h r e e - y e a r statute of limitations i n s e c t i o n 40-6-108(3), on the MCA, determination violates t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment o f Constitution and 11, paternity the equal protection p r o v i s i o n of Article of Section t h e United S t a t e s 4 of the Montana Constitution. An e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e . A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t c h i l d r e n born o u t of wedlock, as a c l a s s , a r e t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from c h i l d r e n born i n wedlock because the first determination class of loses paternity rights and during child infancy for support. In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e c h i l d b o r n o u t o f wedlock may n o t m a i n t a i n a support action against the paternal parent a f t e r three years from t h e d a t e o f MCA. b i r t h of C h i l d r e n born the child. i n wedlock, S e c t i o n 40-6-108(3), whose paternal parent is p r e s u m e d , do n o t f a c e a s t a t u t e t h a t b a r s s u c h a c t i o n s . C h i l d r e n b o r n o u t o f wedlock a r e n o t t h e s o l e p a r t i e s t h a t concern t h i s Court. the State through W e a l s o m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e power o f its agencies p a t e r n i t y under s e c t i o n 40-6-107, their power to bring paternity to MCA. bring actions of S t a t e agencies derive actions by way of this statute. The Montana Constitution provides a r e g u a r a n t e e d t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of that all t h e laws. persons Art. 11, Sec. 4, 1972 Mont. Const. Children Born Out Of Wedlock As to children born out of wedlock, we find that section 40-6-108, MCA, does create an unfair burden and unfairly discriminates against these children. The statute of limitations, as applied, is unconstitutional with respect to children born out of wedlock. The statute prevents any guardian, guardian ad litem or next friend of the child from maintaining an action for support from the paternal parent three years after birth of the child. Classifications of this nature are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, if they are not substantially related to a permissible state interest. Mathews v. Lucas (1976), 427 U.S. 495, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651. The limitations statute constitutes an overly-broad restriction on the rights of children born out of wedlock. The Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed this same issue recently in County of Lenoir ex rel. Cogdell v. Johnson (1980), 46 N.C.App. 182, 264 S.E.2d 816. court's statement has application here: "In the case sub judice, defendant argues that [the statute] bears a substantial relationship to the State's interest in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. We disagree. As we stated previously, a child is entitled to support from its father throughout its minority. Therefore, a child's claim for such support at any time during its minority can never be said to be stale. Nor is [the statute] substantially related to the State's interest in preventing the litigation of fraudulent claims. We have no reason to believe that the mere passage of time bears a direct relation to the truth of the claim asserted. Moreover, the need of a child to The r e c e i v e adequate support m a n i f e s t l y outweighs t h e r e l a t i o n t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s may have t o t h e p r e v e n t i o n of f r a u d u l e n t c l a i m s . " 264 S.E.2d a t 8 2 1 . . . . The rights of during its infancy. the child cannot be so compromised The c h i l d b o r n o u t o f wedlock c a n n o t be b a r r e d a c c e s s t o our c o u r t s d u r i n g i n f a n c y . Art. 11, S e c . 1 3 , 1 9 7 2 Mont. C o n s t . Recently, we examined the scientific advances in b l o o d t e s t i n g i n d e t e r m i n i n g p a t e r n i t y and t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Judicial St.Rep. Dist. 830. - Mont. (1981), The Court of Eighth Rose v . D i s t . newly-developed, , 628 P.2d 38 percentage greater 662, of accuracy in determining p a t e r n i t y allows greater protections f o r t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r from f r a u d u l e n t c l a i m s . t h e s e advances, I n l i g h t of t h e s t a n d a r d of proof r e q u i r e d i n p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n s and t h e d i s c r e t i o n g r a n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n pretrial hearings, s e c t i o n 40-6-108(3), guardian it is MCA, ad litem or nonexistent compared concluded the purpose of a s applied t o t h e child through a other to that is minimal the interest of or the representative, in child o b t a i n i n g s u p p o r t from h i s p a t e r n a l p a r e n t . S t a t e Aqencies T h i s C o u r t d o e s uphold t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e where a s t a t e a g e n c y , s u c h a s t h e D e p a r t ment o f Revenue o r 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 S e r v i c e s , d e r i v e s a r i g h t from t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d b o r n o u t o f wedlock t o b r i n g a c l a i m f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r child support through p a t e r n i t y actions. The i n t e r e s t o f t h e S t a t e i n t h e s e m a t t e r s i s e c o n o m i c , and t h e power o f t h e State to continually threaten its citizens in paternity actions must 1i g h t l y always be thoroughly examined and not taken . The S t a t e is n o t a c h i l d . In r e a l i t y , it cares not s o much a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f a t h e r and c h i l d b u t more a b o u t economic r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r w e l f a r e and o t h e r d e p e n d e n t aid. The r i g h t s g i v e n t o t h e S t a t e a r e n o t e q u a l rights and necessity interests for limitations, paternity. the child finding the child's therefore, inadvertence of and provides delay of or the father. a the to the reasons or The s t a t u t e o f protection State The p a t e r n a l p a r e n t p r o t e c t i o n the actions in against for offered by the s t a t u t e a s against the S t a t e has a s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n t o t h e intended purpose and, t h e r e f o r e , is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . W note t h a t the t o l l i n g s t a t u t e , e s e c t i o n 25-1-102, MCA, by i t s t e r m s , h a s n o t been made a p p l i c a b l e t o Uniform Parentage tolling Act cases. statute for The minors, matter at of least, providing is a called proper to the a t t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r f u t u r e a c t i o n . The j u d g m e n t s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s t o t h e s t a t e agencies are affirmed. D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . Harr i s o n W concur: e Justices Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Haswell, d i s s e n t i n g : I would r e v e r s e . I a g r e e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s is u n c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l as t o a n i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d by t h e majority. I n my v i e w i t i s e q u a l l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e whose claims a r e d e r i v e d t h r o u g h and e q u a l to t h o s e of t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d t o whom it h a s f u r n i s h e d s u p p o r t . The s t a t u t e s o f t h i s S t a t e p r o v i d e : "40-5-109. Remedies o f s t a t e - p o l i t i c a l or subd i v i s i o n furnishing support. If a state o r a p o l i t i c a l subdivision furnishes support t o an i n d i v i d u a l o b l i g e e , it h a s t h e same r i g h t to i n i t i a t e a proceeding under t h i s p a r t as t h e i n d i v i d u a l o b l i g e e f o r t h e purpose of s e c u r i n g r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r s u p p o r t f u r n i s h e d and of obtaining continuing support ." Here t h e S t a t e t o o k a n a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d ' s claim a g a i n s t h i s a l l e g e d f a t h e r . T h i s Court s t a t e d a l m o s t 50 y e a r s a g o : ... " The r u l e i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t a n a s s i g n ment t r a n s f e r s t o t h e a s s i g n e e a l l t h e r i g h t , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t o f t h e a s s i g n o r i n t h e p r o p e r t y assigned 9 1 Mont. 493, 506, 11 P.2d 782. . . ." The same p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s t o s u b r o g a t i o n which i s s i m p l y a d e v i c e o f e q u i t y t o compel u l t i m a t e payment o f a d e b t by o n e who i n j u s t i c e and good c o n s c i e n c e s h o u l d pay i t . & 5 6 5 P.2d A c c o r d i n g l y , a l l t h e r i g h t s and 628, 34 St.Rep. 450. T e l . Co. (1977), Mont . S k a u g e v. M o u n t a i n S t a t e s T e l . I r e m e d i e s o f t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e S t a t e . W h e r e , as h e r e , t h e r i g h t s of t h e S t a t e and t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d a r e i d e n t i c a l , how c a n t h e b a r o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e a t t h e S t a t e ' s claim b u t n o t t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e child Is? Chief J u s t i c e
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.
