GEE v. BELAIR
2017 OK CIV APP 43
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Child R.B. was born Sept. 21, 2014; Jeffrey and April Belair finalized adoption Feb. 18, 2015.
- Wrangler J. Gee filed suit Nov. 30, 2015 seeking to establish paternity and to challenge the adoption, alleging Rose concealed his paternity and he received no adoption notice.
- Gee's petition alleged noncompliance with statutory notice (10 O.S.2011, § 7505-2.1) but did not plead detailed facts about fraud or discovery timing.
- Belairs moved to dismiss invoking three time bars: (1) time to appeal termination of parental rights, (2) time to appeal the adoption decree, and (3) the three-month challenge period in 10 O.S.2011, § 7505-7.2.
- Gee argued the three-month period should be tolled under a discovery/fraud rule; Belairs contended § 7505-7.2 is absolute and not subject to discovery tolling.
- Trial court dismissed; on appeal the Court of Civil Appeals addressed whether § 7505-7.2 is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 3‑month statutory deadline in 10 O.S.2011, § 7505-7.2 to challenge a final adoption is subject to tolling under a discovery/fraud rule | Gee: the 3‑month period was tolled until he discovered the alleged fraud (Rose's concealment) | Belairs: § 7505-7.2 is an absolute time bar enacted as a substantive statute of repose; discovery rule does not apply | The statute is a statute of repose (not a limitations period); it runs from the adoption and is not tolled by discovery; Gee’s claim was time‑barred |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co., 782 P.2d 915 (1989) (defines statute of repose as outer time boundary beyond which no cause of action may arise)
- Jaworsky v. Frolich, 850 P.2d 1052 (1992) (distinguishes statutes of limitations from statutes of repose; repose not tolled by discovery)
- Kirby v. Jean's Plumbing Heat & Air, 222 P.3d 21 (2009) (explains functional difference between limitations and repose; repose runs from specific event)
- Sprowles v. Thompson, 239 P.3d 981 (2010) (holds analogous paternity‑challenge statute is a statute of repose not tolled by discovery)
- Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Systems, Inc., 212 P.3d 1168 (2009) (statute of repose extinguishes substantive right even before claim accrues)