Clark v. Hon. kreamer/chao
1 CA-SA 17-0141
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- In 2004 Mother had sexual relationships with both Ramirez and Chao and later gave birth to M.R. in 2005; Mother told Chao at that time that Ramirez was the father.
- Mother and Ramirez married in 2007; Mother falsely asserted Ramirez was M.R.’s biological father in her 2012 dissolution petition and Ramirez acknowledged paternity; the Decree named Ramirez father, gave him joint custody, and imposed no child support.
- Ramirez never adopted M.R. or changed the birth certificate; during the marriage he functioned (at most) in loco parentis.
- In 2014 Chao saw M.R.’s photos, concluded he was likely the biological father, and Mother then admitted to Chao that he was M.R.’s biological father but delayed DNA testing and later resisted reunification.
- Chao filed to establish paternity, decision-making, and child support; after a hearing the superior court found Mother committed fraud upon the court by falsely asserting Ramirez’s paternity and set aside the relevant portion of the Decree, depriving Ramirez of legal parental status obtained through that Decree.
- The Court of Appeals accepted special action jurisdiction and denied relief, affirming the superior court’s fraud-upon-the-court finding and awarding attorney fees to Chao against Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard for "fraud upon the court" when setting aside the paternity provision | Petitioners: court used an improper, lower "ignorance of the truth" standard; Alvarado requires a more demanding showing | Respondent/Chao: clear-and-convincing proof Mother knowingly concealed facts and intended to mislead; standard applied correctly | Court: applied clear-and-convincing standard correctly; Mother knowingly procured the Decree by concealing material facts; fraud upon the court established |
| Whether it was equitable to void Ramirez’s parental status when he was an innocent party | Petitioners: Ramirez was innocent and relied on the Decree; vacating his rights is inequitable | Chao: Ramirez never established paternity by statute or adoption and was at best in loco parentis; remedies remain available under A.R.S. § 25-409 | Court: equitable relief appropriate; Ramirez’s status returns to pre-Decree in loco parentis and he may seek custody/visitation under statute |
| Whether the court could set aside the consent Decree under A.R.S. § 25-812 (material mistake of fact) as alternative ground | Petitioners: the Decree is a final judgment not subject to rescission absent stricter standards | Chao: section permits relief for material mistake of fact; alternative basis for setting aside | Court: affirmed fraud finding and did not need to resolve the § 25-812 issue further (alternate ruling accepted below) |
| Whether Chao is entitled to attorneys’ fees for defending against the false claim | Petitioners: Chao’s position was unreasonable; fees not warranted | Chao: Mother filed false claim under A.R.S. § 25-403 knowing it was false; fees justified | Court: Mother knowingly presented a false claim; awarded fees to Chao upon timely compliance with appellate rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarado v. Thomson, 240 Ariz. 12 (App. 2016) (fraudulent paternity acknowledgment can constitute fraud upon the court)
- Lake v. Bonham, 148 Ariz. 599 (App. 1986) (definition and elements of fraud upon the court)
- Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass’n v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288 (App. 2011) (courts may set aside judgments obtained by concealing material facts)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944) (fraud upon the court harms the integrity of the judicial process)