LOVE VS. LOVE (PATERNITY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

A divorce decree establishing paternity is generally res judicata and precludes relitigation between the parties. Harris v. Harris, 95 Nev. 214, 217, 591 P.2d 1147, 1148-49 (1979). However, res judicata does not bar relitigation where extrinsic fraud existed in the original proceeding; conduct that keeps a party from a real trial on the issues is extrinsic fraud and a basis for equitable relief. Libro v. Walls, 103 Nev. 540, 543, 746 P.2d 632, 634 (1987); Villalon v. Bowen, 70 Nev. 456, 471, 273 P.2d 409, 416 (1954). Because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Catherine fraudulently concealed the child's parentage, summary judgment was unwarranted, and on remand the district court must first determine whether the original judgment was procured by fraud. The court held DNA test results do not, as a matter of law, conclusively determine paternity. NRS 126.051 sets out rebuttable presumptions of paternity (marriage to the mother at birth, cohabitation, holding the child out as one's own, and blood tests showing 99% or more probability), and NRS 126.051(3) provides that presumptions may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence and that conflicting presumptions are resolved by the weightier considerations of policy and logic. The statutory scheme reflects legislative intent that nonbiological factors may be critical. Nothing compels a court to treat a DNA result as conclusive. If fraud is found on remand, the court must weigh the conflicting presumptions. On child support, a district court has limited discretion to deviate from the NRS 125B.070 guidelines based on the NRS 125B.080(9) factors, giving greater weight to the parties' relative financial means. Anastassatos v. Anastassatos, 112 Nev. 317, 320, 913 P.2d 652, 654 (1996); Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 551, 779 P.2d 532, 536 (1989). Following Herz v. Gabler-Herz, 107 Nev. 117, 119, 808 P.2d 1 (1991), the court upheld the upward departure to $1,800 based on the disparity in the parties' financial resources and the increased expenses of a teenager. It held the settlement term 'educational expenses' unambiguously includes private school tuition. The court reversed the attorney's fees award because it rested on sealed billing statements reviewed in camera, which unfairly precluded Michael from disputing the amount; it noted NRS 125.150(3) permits fees in post-divorce proceedings. Leeming v. Leeming, 87 Nev. 530, 490 P.2d 342 (1971).

In plain language

Michael and Catherine Love married in 1981; a child was born seven months later. Their 1984 divorce decree, based on a settlement, treated Michael as the father and required him to pay child support and the child's medical, dental, and educational expenses. Years later, DNA tests showed Michael was not the child's biological father. When Catherine asked to increase child support (Michael's finances had greatly improved), Michael sued to establish he owed no support, claiming Catherine had fraudulently made him believe he was the father. The district court ruled that the divorce decree conclusively established paternity and that the issue could not be relitigated (res judicata), increased child support to $1,800 per month, ordered Michael to pay private school tuition, and awarded Catherine attorney's fees based on sealed billing statements. The Supreme Court reversed in part. It agreed that a divorce decree establishing paternity is normally final and cannot be relitigated. But it held that 'extrinsic fraud' - here, an allegation that Catherine concealed the child's true parentage and thereby kept Michael from litigating paternity in the divorce - can be a basis to set aside the judgment. Because there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Catherine committed fraud, summary judgment was improper, and the case had to go back for the district court to decide the fraud question first. The Court also held that DNA test results do not, as a matter of law, conclusively decide paternity: under NRS 126.051, presumptions of paternity (including being married to the mother when the child is born and holding the child out as one's own) are rebuttable, and non-biological factors can matter. If, on remand, the court finds fraud, it must weigh the conflicting presumptions. The Court upheld the increased child support, holding a court may exceed the statutory support cap based on the large disparity in the parents' wealth. It held 'educational expenses' in the settlement clearly included private school tuition. But it reversed the attorney's fees award because it was based on sealed billing statements Michael could not review or dispute, noting fees may be available in post-divorce proceedings under NRS 125.150(3).