Truong v. Truong
564 S.W.3d 761
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Truong and Mother married after Mother had two prior children; Truong was adjudicated father of First Child and listed as father on Second Child's birth certificate with his consent.
- During dissolution proceedings Truong obtained a DNA test revealing he is not Second Child's biological father.
- Truong sued Mother for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation seeking emotional damages for having raised Second Child for over ten years; he did not seek to adjudicate or disestablish paternity or recover child-support-related relief.
- Mother moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the circuit court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.
- The central legal question: whether Missouri law recognizes a common-law tort ("paternity fraud") or permits recovery of emotional damages under fraud/misrepresentation claims where the plaintiff does not seek to challenge parental status under the UPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Truong's petition pleads actionable common-law fraud/misrepresentation for Mother’s alleged misrepresentation of Second Child's paternity | Truong says he pleaded elements of fraud/negligent misrepresentation with particularity and seeks emotional damages resulting from reliance on Mother's representations | Mother contends the claim is essentially paternity fraud, which Missouri does not recognize at common law and which is governed exclusively by the UPA and Rule 74.06(b) remedies | The court treated the allegations as paternity-related and found they cannot be transformed into a garden-variety fraud claim; recognition of a paternity-fraud tort is not resolved here but the petition fails for other reasons |
| Whether truong could proceed outside the UPA or Rule 74.06(b) without seeking to change parental status | Truong argues he expressly does not seek to adjudicate paternity or obtain child-support reimbursement; he only seeks emotional damages | Mother argues the UPA supplies the exclusive or proper mechanism for paternity disputes and Truong must use statutory remedies if he seeks relief tied to paternity representations | Court held Truong did not invoke UPA or Rule 74.06(b); because his claim is paternity-centered, procedural UPA mechanisms govern such disputes and he cannot bypass them for the relief he seeks |
| Whether Missouri permits recovery of emotional damages for having raised a nonbiological child when no statutory parentage challenge is pursued | Truong maintains emotional injury from reliance and child-rearing is compensable under common-law fraud | Mother argues such damages are speculative, not recognized, and awarding them would conflict with public policy protecting children's stability | Court held Missouri law does not recognize the type of speculative emotional damages pleaded; costs/benefits of child-rearing are speculative and recovery would conflict with public policy prioritizing children's interests |
| Whether the petition adequately pleaded damages with particularity for fraud claims | Truong asserts he alleged emotional distress causally linked to reliance and caregiving | Mother argues damages are unspecified, speculative, and not recoverable under Missouri law | Court found damages allegations insufficient and unrecognizable as a legal remedy; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Humane Soc'y of the United States, 519 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. banc 2017) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. banc 2008) (petition facts treated as true and construed liberally on motion to dismiss)
- Byrne & Jones Enters., Inc. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist., 493 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. banc 2016) (procedural principles on pleading review)
- Bromwell v. Nixon, 361 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. banc 2012) (do not weigh credibility on motion to dismiss)
- T.B. v. N.B., 478 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (Rule 74.06(b) relief for judgments obtained by extrinsic fraud)
- State ex rel. Wade v. Frawley, 966 S.W.2d 405 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (UPA enacted to protect rights of all parties, especially children)
- Fry v. Fry, 108 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (apply UPA procedures when parentage is contested)
- Girdley v. Coats, 825 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. banc 1992) (child-rearing costs and related damages are speculative)
- Wilson v. Kuenzi, 751 S.W.2d 741 (Mo. banc 1988) (refusal to recognize claims—e.g., wrongful birth—based on unverifiable retrospective testimony)
- Godin v. Godin, 725 A.2d 904 (Vt. 1998) (policy favoring stability of parent-child relationship over presumed father’s later disavowal)