Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin
491 P.3d 1109
| Ariz. | 2021Background
- In 2018 Father (Thomas Cox) and Mother (Makayla Esplin) had a pregnancy; Mother decided to place the child for adoption with a prospective adoptive couple.
- Mother served Father with notice of her intent to place the child for adoption under A.R.S. § 8-106(G) on August 27, 2019; the notice advised a 30-day deadline to initiate and serve paternity proceedings to preserve rights.
- Father's counsel’s paralegal sent a letter indicating intent to file paternity but failed to calendar the 30-day deadline.
- Father filed a paternity action on October 11, 2019 (16 days after the 30-day deadline) and was unable to serve Mother; Mother and the adoptive couple moved to dismiss.
- The superior court dismissed the paternity action under A.R.S. § 8-106(J) and § 25-804; the court of appeals declined jurisdiction; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held § 8-106(J) is a statute of repose/nonclaim statute not subject to equitable tolling or excusable neglect and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable principles (equitable tolling/excusable neglect) can excuse late filing under A.R.S. § 8-106(J) | Cox: court should apply equitable relief to excuse untimely filing caused by counsel/paralegal error | Mother/Adoptive Couple: § 8-106(J) is a nonclaim/statute of repose and therefore not subject to equitable exceptions | Court: § 8-106(J) is a statute of repose/nonclaim statute; equitable tolling/relief unavailable |
| Whether dismissal of the paternity action was required under controlling statutes and rules | Cox: the late filing should not bar his claim | Mother/Adoptive Couple: dismissal is mandated by §§ 8-106(J), 25-804 and Rule 40(j) | Court: dismissal was required; Father's consent waived and he forfeited notice rights |
Key Cases Cited
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2014) (statutes of repose are generally not subject to equitable tolling)
- Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship, 227 Ariz. 121 (Ariz. 2011) (distinguishes statutes of limitations from statutes of repose/nonclaim statutes)
- In re Adoption of K.M., 31 N.E.3d 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Indiana statute equivalent held to be nonclaim statute; persuasive on adoption deadlines)
- Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 243 Ariz. 111 (Ariz. 2017) (Arizona public policy favors prompt finality in adoptions)
- Abbott v. Banner Health Network, 239 Ariz. 409 (Ariz. 2016) (de novo review for dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) applied analogously to family law rule)