Hardy v. Hardy
2011 Ark. 82
Ark.2011Background
- Jeffrey J. Hardy and Diana Hardy married in 1995; T.H. born 1995 during marriage; W.H. born 1996.
- Divorce filed 2002; 2003 decree awarded Diana custody and Jeffrey child support, with no express paternity finding for T.H.
- Jeffrey’s 2003 motion for paternity testing was denied; presumption in favor of Hardy as father was upheld.
- 2007 contempt petition for nonpayment; 2008 discovery disputes and quashed subpoenas regarding Diana’s prenatal records.
- Jeffrey sought Rule 60(c)(4) relief to set aside the decree for fraud; court denied; affirmed on appeal, finding res judicata barred paternity challenge and ruling on statutes constitutional.
- Final order entered in 2010; appeal brought; issue framed as res judicata and fraud-based relief under Rule 60(c)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the paternity challenge | Jeffrey argues earlier decree didn’t decide paternity | Diana maintains final judgment on same paternity issue | Yes, paternity barred by claim preclusion |
| Whether Rule 60(c)(4) fraud can set aside the decree | Rule 60(c)(4) applies due to Diana’s fraud | Fraud claim failed to meet Rule 60(c)(4) standards | No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(c)(4) not used to void paternity decree |
| Whether discovery into Diana’s prenatal records was permissible | Discovery needed to prove fraud | Discovery already adjudicated; no need | No abuse; discovery denied |
| Constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-115 as applied | Alleged unconstitutional application to divorced fathers | Statute constitutional as applied | Constitutional as applied; res judicata bars challenge |
| Whether other statutes grant or deny DNA testing rights for putative fathers | Diana’s laws unfairly restricts testing | Statutes provide procedures; not violated | No reversible error; constitutional considerations upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickson v. Fletcher, 361 Ark. 244 (Ark. 2005) (Rule 60(c)(4) used for post-divorce relief in fraud context)
- Martin v. Pierce, 370 Ark. 53 (Ark. 2007) (Rule 60(c)(4) cannot void paternity under a divorce decree (presumption concerns))
- Redden v. Arkansas State Bd. of Law Examiners, 371 Ark. 584 (Ark. 2007) (appeal requirements/Bar to challenges under res judicata)
- Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 (Ark. 2002) (final judgment; and non-appeal effects on relief)
- Hunt v. Perry, 357 Ark. 224 (Ark. 2004) (res judicata impact when no appeal from final judgment)
- Beebe v. Fountain Lake School Dist., 365 Ark. 536 (Ark. 2006) (res judicata applicability on same events)
- Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Willis, 347 Ark. 6 (Ark. 2001) (final judgment elements and collateral estoppel)
- Hunt v. Perry, 355 Ark. 303 (Ark. 2003) (precedent on appeal and res judicata)