Joseph O. Dier v. Cassandra Jo Peters
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 59
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Dier, a putative father, paid money based on Peters's fraudulently claimed paternity of O.D.
- Peters knew Dier was not the biological father but told him he was; paternity tests later excluded him.
- Dier sought reimbursement for monies expended and custody litigation costs; Peters moved to dismiss.
- Trial court dismissed; district court relied on public policy and lack of statutory action for paternity fraud.
- Iowa Supreme Court held common law fraud action may proceed; upholds fraud theory to recover out-of-pocket expenses but limits certain fees.
- Court discusses limits: may recover monetary payments made voluntarily due to fraud; may not recover prior custody litigation attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paternity fraud is actionable as common law fraud | Dier argues traditional fraud elements apply to paternity misrepresentation | Peters contends no Iowa action for paternity fraud exists and public policy bars it | Yes; common law fraud action viable against paternity fraud |
| Whether the misrepresentation about paternity was material | Misrepresentation of paternity is material as it influenced actions | Paternity is a sensitive matter; materiality uncertain | Material; misrepresentation concerning paternity is material |
| Whether scienter and intent to deceive are satisfied | Dier alleges Peters knew he was not the father and sought to deceive | Public policy or lack of knowledge could defeat scienter | Sufficient; alleged knowledge of falsity and intent to deceive meet elements |
| Whether justifiable reliance and proximate causation are shown | Dier relied on Peters's assertion to provide support and incur litigation costs | Reliance may be questioned given available paternity tests | Sufficient; justifiable reliance and proximate cause pleaded |
| What damages are recoverable and any statutory/public policy limits | Damages include out-of-pocket support and litigation costs | Attorney fees may be limited; policy concerns about public welfare | Out-of-pocket damages recoverable; certain custody-related fees not recoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcox v. Wilcox, 532 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa 1995) (accrued court-ordered support cannot be retroactively reduced; final judgments)
- Day v. Heller, 653 N.W.2d 475 (Neb. 2002) (public policy concerns in paternity fraud; harm to child welfare)
- Beeck v. Kapalis, 302 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa 1981) (fraud claim for misrepresentation in consumer context; reckless misstatement)
- Nanke v. Napier, 346 N.W.2d 520 (Iowa 1984) (public policy against wrongful birth damages; balancing harms)
- Koelle v. Zwiren, 284 Ill.App.3d 778 (Ill.App. 1996) (public policy not to shield fraud; paternity misrepresentation actionable)
- Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887 (Okla. 1998) (paternity fraud claims; damages not limited to emotional distress)
- G.A.W., III v. D.M.W., 596 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (public policy considerations in recognizing paternity fraud claims)