Alvarado v. Thomson
240 Ariz. 12
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Nov. 2011 Vanessa Trujillo signed a DES acknowledgment of paternity listing Ernest Alvarado as the child’s father; Ernest knew he was not the biological father and paid Trujillo to do so.
- The acknowledgment was filed and used to obtain a birth certificate listing Ernest; the Alvarados raised the child for three years.
- In 2015 genetic testing showed Nicholas Murrietta was the biological father; Murrietta moved to set aside the acknowledgment under A.R.S. § 25-812(E) and Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 85(C).
- The superior court found the acknowledgment was knowingly false and used to avoid the adoption process (and its required best-interests judicial review), concluding it was a fraud upon the court and set the acknowledgment aside.
- Ernest argued the challenge was time-barred (six-month limit) and later moved to set aside the court’s ruling based on alleged misconduct that kept Trujillo from testifying; the superior court denied relief.
- The appellate court accepted special action jurisdiction and denied relief, affirming that a fraudulent acknowledgment used to circumvent adoption procedures constituted fraud upon the court and that the motion to set aside was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murrietta) | Defendant's Argument (Ernest) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a knowingly false acknowledgment of paternity that lists the wrong father to avoid adoption constitutes fraud upon the court | The fraudulent acknowledgment prevented a judicial best-interests assessment and thus was fraud on the court, not time-barred | Because the acknowledgment can be challenged, its creation cannot be fraud on the court; challenge was time-barred under six-month rule | Held: It was fraud upon the court; six-month limit does not bar an independent fraud-on-the-court action |
| Whether Andrew R. bars relief by imposing the six-month limit on all challenges | Andrew R. did not address fraud on the court; fraud-on-the-court claims are not subject to the six-month rule | Andrew R. should control and time-bar Murrietta’s claim | Held: Andrew R. is distinguishable; does not preclude fraud-on-the-court relief |
| Whether avoidance of adoption procedures (best-interests review) is legally significant to fraud-on-the-court analysis | Such avoidance is central — it subverted the court’s role and the child’s permanency protections | Avoidance alone does not preclude later challenge; no real contest was prevented because challenge remains possible | Held: Avoiding adoption/best-interests review supports finding fraud upon the court |
| Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying Ernest’s motion to set aside based on alleged witness intimidation/payment of Trujillo | Trujillo’s later affidavit alleged Yvette paid/threatened her to not testify, which would be misconduct warranting relief | Issues were waived; Trujillo was not subpoenaed, Ernest had prior contact/affidavit from Trujillo, and much of new affidavit duplicated or contradicted earlier evidence | Held: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; grounds were waived or insufficient to overturn earlier ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. Hoskyns, 236 Ariz. 173 (App. 2014) (defines fraud on the court as conduct preventing a fair submission of the controversy and permitting equitable relief)
- Andrew R. v. Ariz. Dep’t Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 453 (App. 2010) (acknowledgment of paternity has force of a superior court judgment and is presumptively valid; discussed time/manner of challenges)
- Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass’n v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288 (App. 2011) (fraud upon the court may be set aside without regard to ordinary time limits because it injures the integrity of the judicial process)
- Lake v. Bonham, 148 Ariz. 599 (App. 1986) (describes fraud upon the court as egregious conduct attacking the judicial process)
- Bates v. Bates, 1 Ariz.App. 165 (App. 1965) (equity may set aside a judgment procured by fraud upon the court)
- Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99 (App. 2003) (reiterates the paramountcy of the child’s best interests in custody/adoption contexts)
- McGee v. Gonyo, 140 A.3d 162 (Vt. 2016) (collecting authorities recognizing that fraudulent collusion to establish parentage can be set aside as fraud on the court)