Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau
135 A.3d 419
| Md. | 2016Background
- Justin Davis signed Affidavits of Parentage for twins born in 2009; he later questioned paternity and sought genetic testing.
- In 2011, the Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement filed a child-support action based on the affidavits; Davis denied paternity.
- Circuit Court Judge Mitchell ordered Davis to pay support and denied testing, ruling no fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact was shown.
- Davis did not appeal the 2011 judgment, but in 2013 he sought a blood/genetic test under FL §§ 5-1029 and 5-1038 to challenge paternity and possibly set aside the order.
- The Circuit Court granted summary judgment against Davis, holding he was barred by res judicata and that genetic testing was not warranted.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Court granted certiorari to decide whether a paternity test is mandated and whether extrinsic fraud could alter finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a genetic test mandated when fraud is alleged in affidavits? | Davis seeks testing per Langston to challenge the affidavits. | Bureau argues testing is not mandatory under the statutes and is constrained by 5-1028. | No automatic mandate; testing subject to statutory framework and limitations. |
| Does res judicata bar the 2013 genetic-test claim? | Davis argues the 2011 ruling did not resolve the genetic-test claim. | Bureau contends the 2011 final judgment precludes relitigation of related claims. | Yes; the 2011 judgment bars the 2013 claim to rescind affidavits and related fraud theories. |
| Was the 2011 order a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata? | Davis contends the 2011 ruling did not address the genetic-test claim and thus not a final merits judgment on that issue. | Bureau contends the order was final as to paternity and support. | Majority treats 2011 order as final regarding the issue of paternity and res judicata applies to related claims. |
| Does Langston v. Riffe control the availability of genetic testing for an affidavit-of-parentage case? | Langston requires a genetic test when a parent seeks to revise paternity after an acknowledgment. | Langston is distinguishable; § 5-1028 creates a different path with limited grounds to challenge. | Langston is not controlling here; 5-1028 and 5-1038 have distinct histories and applications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 361 Md. 371 (2000) (definition and application of claim preclusion in Maryland)
- Prince George’s County v. Brent, 414 Md. 334 (2010) (res judicata elements and final judgments in Maryland)
- Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396 (2000) (genetic testing triggered for modification of paternity orders; retroactive application noted)
- Tandra S. v. Tyrone W., 336 Md. 303 (1994) (limits on challenging enrolled paternity judgments)
- Burden v. Burden, 179 Md.App. 348 (2008) (recognition that signing an affidavit may not permit relief absent fraud, etc.)