Reller v. Reller
2012 UT App 323
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Intervenor sought to be adjudicated as the father of Wife's child born during marriage.
- Initial default divorce decree in 2006 stated there was one child from the marriage.
- Genetic testing in 2008 excluded Husband as the father, leading to a bifurcated 2009 decree
- State later pursued paternity against Intervenor; paternity of the child was established in a separate action.
- Intervenor moved to intervene; district court ultimately permitted intervention and resolved paternity issues.
- Court affirmed that the district court correctly permitted revisiting the decree and that Husband was not the father; intervenor remains the child’s adjudicated father in separate proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could revisit the 2006 decree | Intervenor argues lack of subject matter jurisdiction | State argues UPPA permits revisiting when paternity adjudicated or could be adjudicated | District court had jurisdiction to revisit the issue of parentage |
| Whether the original decree could be set aside under Rule 60(b) | Intervenor sought relief via stipulation construed as Rule 60(b) | Court could grant relief to resolve merits including genetic testing results | Yes; district court properly set aside the decree under Rule 60(b) and admitted genetic testing results |
| Whether Intervenor has standing to challenge the final judgment | Intervenor claims standing as interested party | Argues lack of standing to appeal | Intervenor has standing to appeal and challenge the judgment |
| Whether paternity was adjudicated in the initial decree | Intervenor contends it was adjudicated; presumption applies | Presumption and adjudication not established in initial decree | Paternity was not adjudicated in the initial decree; not barred from later adjudication |
| What is the appropriate disposition consistent with child’s best interests | Affirm decree denying Husband as father; support aligns with intervenor | Maintain the status resulting from separate paternity action | Affirmed; best interests served by confirming no husband as father and Intervenor as father in separate action |
Key Cases Cited
- Case v. Case, 103 P.3d 171 (Utah App. 2004) (correct application of correction of error standard; subject matter jurisdiction concerns)
- Mack v. Utah State Dep't of Commerce, 221 P.3d 194 (Utah 2009) (correct use of res judicata/collateral estoppel standards)
- Covington v. Josephson, 888 P.2d 675 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (standing and traditional party/privy concepts in appellate review)
- Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599 (Utah 1989) (adjunct discussion on adjudications vs. custody orders)
- Gulley v. Gulley, 570 P.2d 127 (Utah 1977) (parental duty to support children)